Dataset Information

Bimatoprost 0.03%/timolol 0.5% preservative-free ophthalmic solution versus bimatoprost 0.03%/timolol 0.5% ophthalmic solution (Ganfort) for glaucoma or ocular hypertension: a 12-week randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: To compare the efficacy and safety of single-dose bimatoprost 0.03%/timolol 0.5% preservative-free (PF) ophthalmic solution with bimatoprost 0.03%/timolol 0.5% ophthalmic solution in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension.In this multicentre, randomised, parallel-group study, patients were randomised to bimatoprost/timolol PF or bimatoprost/timolol once daily in the morning for 12 weeks. Primary efficacy endpoints, reflecting differing regional regulatory requirements, included change from baseline in worse eye intraocular pressure (IOP) in the per-protocol population at week 12, and the average eye IOP at weeks 2, 6 and 12 in the intent-to-treat population.561 patients were randomised (278 to bimatoprost/timolol PF; 283 to bimatoprost/timolol); 96.3% completed the study. Both treatment groups showed statistically and clinically significant mean decreases from baseline in worse eye IOP and in average eye IOP at all follow-up time points (p<0.001). Bimatoprost/timolol PF met all pre-established criteria for non-inferiority and equivalence to bimatoprost/timolol. Ocular adverse events were similar between treatment groups, with conjunctival hyperaemia being the most frequent. Most were mild or moderate in severity.Bimatoprost/timolol PF demonstrated non-inferiority and equivalence in IOP lowering compared with bimatoprost/timolol, with no significant differences in safety and tolerability.NCT01177098.

SUBMITTER: Goldberg I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4078699 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Bimatoprost 0.03%/timolol 0.5% preservative-free ophthalmic solution versus bimatoprost 0.03%/timolol 0.5% ophthalmic solution (Ganfort) for glaucoma or ocular hypertension: a 12-week randomised controlled trial.

Goldberg Ivan I Gil Pina Rafael R Lanzagorta-Aresti Aitor A Schiffman Rhett M RM Liu Charlie C Bejanian Marina M

The British journal of ophthalmology 20140325 7

<h4>Aim</h4>To compare the efficacy and safety of single-dose bimatoprost 0.03%/timolol 0.5% preservative-free (PF) ophthalmic solution with bimatoprost 0.03%/timolol 0.5% ophthalmic solution in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension.<h4>Methods</h4>In this multicentre, randomised, parallel-group study, patients were randomised to bimatoprost/timolol PF or bimatoprost/timolol once daily in the morning for 12 weeks. Primary efficacy endpoints, reflecting differing regional regul ...[more]

PMID: 24667994

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionFixed-combination bimatoprost 0.03%/timolol 0.5% ophthalmic solution (FCBT; Ganfort®, Allergan, an AbbVie company) effectively reduces intraocular pressure (IOP) via complementary mechanisms of action of the agents, but long-term (> 12 weeks) safety evaluations of FCBT remain limited. FCBT safety is evaluated herein, with particular focus on hyperemia and eyelash growth, at 24 weeks in Chinese patients with open-angle glaucoma (OAG) or ocular hypertension (OHT).MethodsIn this multicenter, open-label, noncomparative, phase 4 study conducted in China, patients diagnosed with OAG or OHT having insufficient response to β-blocker- or prostaglandin analogue/prostamide (PGA)-based IOP-lowering monotherapy in one or both eyes were switched from their current IOP-lowering treatment to FCBT (one drop per eye every evening) without prior washout. Assessment visits were scheduled at baseline and weeks 4, 12, and 24 (or study exit). The primary outcome measure was adverse event (AE) incidence through 24 weeks.ResultsOf 725 patients enrolled, 632 (87.2%) completed the study; 93 (12.8%) patients discontinued, including 29 (4.0%) due to AEs. Of 1326 FCBT-treated eyes (total), 594 (44.8%) experienced ≥ 1 ocular treatment-related AE during the study. Conjunctival hyperemia (the most common AE overall) and eyelash growth were reported in 269 (20.3%) and 54 (4.1%) FCBT-treated eyes, respectively. The incidence of other known PGA-related AEs (including blepharal pigmentation and erythema of eyelid) was < 10% each. Most conjunctival hyperemia reports were mild in severity (214/259; 82.6%) and only 1/259 (0.4%) was severe. Similarly, most cases of eyelash growth were mild (46/52; 88.5%); none were severe. One (< 0.1%) FCBT-treated eye had a serious ocular AE (OAG) considered FCBT-related.ConclusionsThe frequency and severity of FCBT-related AEs, including conjunctival hyperemia and eyelash growth, are consistent with previously published findings. No new safety concerns were raised. This prospective study reaffirms that once-daily FCBT is a safe and well-tolerated therapy for OAG and OHT.ClinicaltrialsGov identifierNCT02571712.

Project description:IntroductionThe intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering effect and safety of tafluprost 0.0015%/timolol maleate 0.5% combination ophthalmic solution (Taf-TFC) were investigated in a real-world clinical setting.MethodsA prospective up to 2-year (more than 1 year) observational study has been initiated to collect data on the IOP, conjunctival hyperemia score, corneal staining score, and adverse events suffered by patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension treated at 3 months, and up to 2 years (more than 1 year) after initiating treatment with Taf-TFC. The 3-month findings are reported here.ResultsAmong 439 patients enrolled at 100 institutions in Japan, most had normal tension glaucoma (45.3%) or primary open angle glaucoma (36.0%). Adverse drug reaction (ADR) occurred in 5.01%. The important ADRs were conjunctival hyperemia (five patients), blepharitis (four patients), and punctate keratitis (two patients). Serious adverse reactions occurred in two patients (three events). In 410 patients with data both before and after treatment, baseline mean IOP was 17.5 ± 5.0 mmHg, and it was significantly decreased after 1, 2, and 3 months (all P < 0.05, paired-t test). IOP was significantly reduced in patients switched to Taf-TFC from either prostaglandin or β-blocker monotherapy. IOP also decreased significantly in patients switched from a prostaglandin/timolol fixed combination, but not in patients switched from concomitant use of a prostaglandin analog and a β-blocker. The use of Taf-TFC did not worsen the adherence in most patients.ConclusionTaf-TFC significantly reduced the IOP in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension treated in daily clinical practice with controllable or recoverable ADRs in short period. Taf-TFC was effective regardless of treatment patterns, and particularly, Taf-TFC significantly reduced IOP in cases in which requiring the second line therapy as insufficient of monotherapy.FundingSanten Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Osaka, Japan.

Project description:IntroductionThe aim of this prospective crossover study was to evaluate the non-inferiority of PRO-122 (a preservative-free fixed combination) compared with 0.5% timolol + 0.2% brimonidine + 2.0% dorzolamide fixed combination (KOF) by evaluating its efficacy, tolerability and safety in subjects with controlled primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) previously treated with KOF for at least 2 months.MethodsIn a prospective, crossover, randomized, double-masked multicenter study, patients previously treated with KOF were randomly assigned to receive either PRO-122 or KOF for 30 days. On day 31, the A sequence changed to KOF, while the B sequence received PRO-122. All patients remained in the protocol for 30 additional days for a total of 60 days. The main efficacy endpoint was maintaining the controlled intraocular pressure (IOP). The safety and tolerability of both products were assessed by the presence of adverse events (AEs), ocular findings, a questionnaire on ocular comfort and the VF-14 index.ResultsA total of 51 patients participated. After application of PRO-122 twice a day, its efficacy was demonstrated through maintenance of the controlled IOP in patients previously controlled with KOF. The crossover between PRO-122 and KOF and vice versa, after 30 days of use, did not affect IOP control. PRO-122 was shown not to be inferior to KOF in maintaining IOP at control levels. The safety of both drugs is similar, as neither presented drug-related AEs or differences regarding safety issues. The tolerability of the two medications-evaluated by ocular findings, the questionnaire on ocular comfort and the VF-14 index-was also determined to be similar.ConclusionsThe controlled IOP in patients with controlled POAG treated with PRO-122 was maintained both in relation to the initial controlled IOP of the study and when compared with KOF in the B sequence. Finally, the treatment with PRO-122 demonstrated similar safety and tolerability to KOF.FundingLaboratorios Sophia, S.A. de C.V. (Zapopan, Jalisco, México).Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03257813 (registered retrospectively).

Project description:BACKGROUND:The purpose of this study was to evaluate the intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering efficacy and safety of bimatoprost 0.01% or 0.03% as monotherapy in patients treated with latanoprost 0.005% monotherapy who require additional IOP lowering for their ocular hypertension or open-angle glaucoma. METHODS:Two prospective, investigator-masked, randomized, parallel-group, multicenter studies enrolled patients with baseline IOP ?20 mmHg after ?30 days of latanoprost 0.005% monotherapy. Patients were randomized to 12 weeks of study treatment (study 1, bimatoprost 0.01% once daily or bimatoprost 0.01% once daily plus brimonidine 0.1% three times daily; study 2, bimatoprost 0.03% once daily or bimatoprost 0.03% once daily plus fixed-combination brimonidine 0.2%/timolol 0.5% twice daily). Patient evaluations at weeks 4 and 12 included IOP at 8 am, 10 am, and 4 pm and safety assessments. Results in the monotherapy study arms (bimatoprost 0.01% or 0.03%) are presented. RESULTS:Latanoprost-treated baseline mean diurnal IOP (± standard error of the mean) was 22.2±0.3 mmHg and 22.1±0.4 mmHg in the bimatoprost 0.01% and bimatoprost 0.03% treatment arms, respectively (P=0.957). In both treatment arms, mean (± standard error of the mean) reduction in IOP from latanoprost-treated baseline was statistically significant at each time point at both follow-up visits (P<0.001), ranging from 3.7±0.4 (17.0%) mmHg to 4.4±0.4 (19.9%) mmHg with bimatoprost 0.01% and from 2.8±0.5 (12.8%) mmHg to 3.9±0.5 (16.7%) mmHg with bimatoprost 0.03%. Mean percentage IOP reduction from latanoprost-treated baseline was numerically greater with bimatoprost 0.01% than with bimatoprost 0.03% throughout follow-up. The incidence of conjunctival hyperemia of mild or greater severity increased from latanoprost baseline after 12 weeks of treatment only in the bimatoprost 0.03% treatment arm. CONCLUSION:Many patients who do not reach their target IOP on latanoprost can achieve additional IOP lowering and maintain monotherapy by replacing latanoprost with bimatoprost. Reductions in IOP from latanoprost baseline were larger with bimatoprost 0.01% than with bimatoprost 0.03%, and bimatoprost 0.01% had a more favorable tolerability profile.

Project description:PurposeTo compare the 24-hour (24h) effects on intraocular pressure (IOP) and cardiovascular parameters of timolol 0.5% and bimatoprost 0.01% in open angle glaucoma and ocular hypertensive subjects.MethodsIn this prospective, randomized, double masked, crossover, clinical trial, after washout from previous medications enrolled subjects underwent 24h IOP, blood pressure (BP) and heart rate (HR) measurements and were randomized to either topical bimatoprost 0.01% at night plus placebo in the morning or to timolol 0.5% bid. After 8 weeks of treatment a second 24h assessment of IOP, BP and HR was performed and then subjects switched to the opposite treatment for additional 8 weeks when a third 24h assessment was performed. The primary endpoint was the comparison of the mean 24h IOP after each treatment. Secondary endpoints included the comparisons of IOP at each timepoint of the 24h curve and the comparison of BP, HR, ocular perfusion pressure and tolerability.ResultsMean untreated 24h IOP was 20.3 mmHg (95%CI 19.0 to 21.6). Mean 24h IOP was significantly lower after 8 weeks of treatment with bimatoprost 0.01% than after 8 weeks of treatment with timolol 0.5% bid (15.7 vs 16.8 mmHg, p = 0.0003). Mean IOP during the day hours was significantly reduced from baseline by both drugs while mean IOP during the night hours was reduced by -2.3 mmHg (p = 0.0002) by bimatoprost 0.01% plus placebo and by -1.1 mmHg by timolol 0.5% bid (p = 0.06). Timolol 0.5% significantly reduced the mean 24h systolic BP from baseline, the diastolic BP during the day hours, the HR during the night hours, and the mean 24h systolic ocular perfusion pressure.ConclusionBoth Bimatoprost 0.01% and Timolol 0.5% are effective in reducing the mean 24h IOP from an untreated baseline but Bimatoprost 0.01% is more effective than timolol 0.5% throughout the 24h. Timolol 0.5% effect on IOP is reduced during the night hours and is associated with reduced BP, HR and ocular perfusion pressure.Trial registrationEU Clinical Trial Register and EudraCT# 2010-024272-26.

Project description:ImportanceOral β-blockers used for the prevention of migraine headache are not effective for the treatment of acute pain. Small case series have suggested that topically applied β-blockers may be useful in the management of acute migraine pain, warranting evaluation with randomized clinical trials.ObjectiveTo evaluate the short-term efficacy and safety of topically applied timolol maleate ophthalmic solution, 0.5%, compared with topically applied placebo eyedrops in the treatment of acute migraine attacks.Design, setting, and participantsIn this randomized, masked placebo-controlled crossover trial conducted from May 27, 2015, to August 28, 2017, 50 patients with migraine were randomized to receive either timolol eyedrops, 0.5%, or a placebo eyedrop (carboxymethyl cellulose, 0.5%). After a 3-month treatment period, patients completed a 1-month washout period and were crossed over to receive the opposite treatment for a final 3 months. Analysis was performed on a modified intent-to-treat basis.InterventionAfter random assignment, patients were instructed to use 1 drop of the assigned medication in each eye at the earliest onset of migraine.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcome measure was reduction in pain score with treatment. The primary end point was reduction of pain score by 4 points, or to zero, 20 minutes after instillation of the eyedrop.ResultsOf the 50 patients, 42 (84%) were females and the mean (SD) age was 27.3 (11.3) years. Of a total of 619 migraine attacks, 284 (46%) were treated with timolol, 271 (44%) were treated with the placebo, and 64 (10%) occurred during the washout period when no study medications were used. Seven patients (14%) withdrew after randomization. A total of 233 of the timolol-treated migraine attacks (82%) were associated with a reduction in pain score by 4 points, or to zero, at 20 minutes compared with 38 of the placebo-treated attacks (14%), with a difference of 68 percentage points (95% CI, 62-74 percentage points). A generalized estimating equation analysis revealed that pain score reduction at 20 minutes was greater in the timolol group compared with the placebo group by a mean (SE) of 4.63 points (0.34) (P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceThis randomized crossover trial supports consideration of timolol eyedrops in the acute treatment of migraine. Further research is warranted to determine if the improvements observed are sustained for a longer follow-up and with larger groups.Trial registrationCTRI/2015/05/005829, UTN: U1111-1167-6439.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Fixed-combination ocular hypotensives have multiple advantages, but triple-therapy dorzolamide/brimonidine/timolol (dorz/brim/tim) is only available in Latin and South America, and information on its relative efficacy is limited. This study compares the efficacy and tolerability of fixed-combination bimatoprost/timolol (bim/tim) and dorz/brim/tim in Mexican patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. METHODS:In this investigator-masked, crossover study, patients with unmet target intraocular pressure (IOP) on once-daily bim/tim or twice-daily dorz/brim/tim received the opposite medication for 3 months before returning to their pre-baseline medication for 3 months. IOP was evaluated before and after morning instillation at months 2, 3, 5 and 6. Primary endpoints were mean IOP change and Ocular Surface Disease Index© (OSDI) score at each visit. The intent-to-treat population was the a priori analysis population, but due to the number of discontinuations, the per-protocol and intent-to-treat populations were used for the primary efficacy and sensitivity analyses, respectively. RESULTS:Seventy-eight and 56 patients were included in the intent-to-treat and per-protocol populations, respectively. At month 3, statistically significant IOP reductions from baseline were observed in the bim/tim (P?<?0.01) and dorz/brim/tim (P?<?0.0001) groups, regardless of assessment time. At month 6, patients returned to bim/tim exhibited no significant IOP increase (regardless of assessment time), but patients returned to dorz/brim/tim exhibited a statistically significant IOP increase (P?<?0.001) when assessed before instillation of study treatment. Results were similar in both intent-to-treat and per-protocol analysis populations. In the per-protocol analysis, 70% of patients on bim/tim at month 3 had an IOP <14 mm Hg, which declined to 58% (P?=?0.0061) at month 6 (ie, after 3 months of dorz/brim/tim treatment). In patients receiving dorz/brim/tim at month 3, 38% had an IOP <14 mm Hg, which remained comparable after return to bim/tim. OSDI scores and incidence of adverse events were similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS:In this first direct comparison of the efficacy of dorz/brim/tim and bim/tim, patients switched from dorz/brim/tim to bim/tim demonstrated improved/lower IOP; when returned to dorz/brim/tim, IOP increased to levels seen at study initiation, suggesting that once-daily bim/tim may have greater IOP-lowering efficacy. Both bim/tim and dorz/brim/tim were well tolerated with minimal ocular surface damage. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01737853 (registered October 9, 2012).

Dataset Information

Bimatoprost 0.03%/timolol 0.5% preservative-free ophthalmic solution versus bimatoprost 0.03%/timolol 0.5% ophthalmic solution (Ganfort) for glaucoma or ocular hypertension: a 12-week randomised controlled trial.

Publications

Bimatoprost 0.03%/timolol 0.5% preservative-free ophthalmic solution versus bimatoprost 0.03%/timolol 0.5% ophthalmic solution (Ganfort) for glaucoma or ocular hypertension: a 12-week randomised controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets