Dataset Information

A Comfort Survey of Timolol Hemihydrate 0.5% Solution Once or Twice Daily vs Timolol Maleate in Sorbate.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To evaluate by survey the comfort upon instillation of timolol hemihydrate compared to timolol maleate with potassium sorbate. DESIGN:A prospective, multicenter, observational, non-interventional study. PARTICIPANTS:One hundred and three patients of open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension who were ?21 years old and were currently prescribed timolol hemihydrate (once or twice daily) or timolol maleate with potassium sorbate once daily as monotherapy or as a part of two-drug therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Study was performed at seven clinical sites in the United States. Patients were surveyed on comfort upon instillation of timolol hemihydrate compared to timolol maleate with potassium sorbate. RESULTS:A difference between timolol hemihydrate and timolol maleate with potassium sorbate for questions 1 (burning/stinging on instillation, p < 0.001) and 4 (tearing on instillation, p = 0.024) was noted. There were no differences between treatment groups for any other question (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION:This survey suggests that timolol hemihydrate is associated with less stinging/burning and tearing than timolol maleate with potassium sorbate. How to cite this article: Stewart WC, Oehler JC, Choplin NT, Markoff JI, Moster MR, Ichhpujani P, Nelson LA. A Comfort Survey of Timolol Hemihydrate 0.5% Solution Once or Twice Daily vs Timolol Maleate in Sorbate. J Current Glau Prac 2013;7(1):11-16.

SUBMITTER: Stewart WC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4741129 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Jan-Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Comfort Survey of Timolol Hemihydrate 0.5% Solution Once or Twice Daily vs Timolol Maleate in Sorbate.

Stewart William C WC Oehler Jeffrey C JC Choplin Neil T NT Markoff Joseph I JI Moster Marlene R MR Ichhpujani Parul P Nelson Lindsay A LA

Journal of current glaucoma practice 20130115 1

<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate by survey the comfort upon instillation of timolol hemihydrate compared to timolol maleate with potassium sorbate.<h4>Design</h4>A prospective, multicenter, observational, non-interventional study.<h4>Participants</h4>One hundred and three patients of open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension who were ≥21 years old and were currently prescribed timolol hemihydrate (once or twice daily) or timolol maleate with potassium sorbate once daily as monotherapy or as a part ...[more]

PMID: 26997774

Similar Datasets

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:BackgroundAntiretroviral therapy (ART) adherence is critical for successful HIV treatment outcomes. Once-daily dosing could improve adherence. Plasma concentrations of once-daily vs twice-daily abacavir + lamivudine are bioequivalent in children, but no randomized trial has compared virological outcomes.MethodsChildren taking abacavir + lamivudine-containing first-line regimens twice daily for more than 36 weeks in the ARROW trial (NCT02028676, ISRCTN24791884) were randomized to continue twice-daily vs move to once-daily abacavir + lamivudine (open-label). Co-primary outcomes were viral load suppression at week 48 (12% noninferiority margin, measured retrospectively) and lamivudine or abacavir-related grade 3/4 adverse events.ResultsSix hundred and sixty-nine children (median 5 years, range 1-16) were randomized to twice daily (n = 333) vs once daily (n = 336) after median 1.8 years on twice-daily abacavir + lamivudine-containing first-line ART. Children were followed for median 114 weeks. At week 48, 242/331 (73%) twice daily vs 236/330 (72%) once daily had viral load less than 80 copies/ml [difference -1.6% (95% confidence interval -8.4,+5.2%) P = 0.65]; 79% twice daily vs 78% once daily had viral load less than 400 copies/ml (P = 0.76) (week 96 results similar). One grade 3/4 adverse event was judged uncertainly related to abacavir + lamivudine (hepatitis; once daily). At week 48, 9% twice daily vs 10% once daily reported missing one or more ART pills in the last 4 weeks (P = 0.74) and 8 vs 8% at week 96 (P = 0.90). Carers strongly preferred once-daily dosing. There was no difference between randomized groups in postbaseline drug-resistance mutations or drug-susceptibility; WHO 3/4 events; ART-modifying, grade 3/4 or serious adverse events; CD4% or weight-for-age/height-for-age (all P > 0.15).ConclusionOnce-daily abacavir + lamivudine was noninferior to twice daily in viral load suppression, with similar resistance, adherence, clinical, immunological and safety outcomes. Abacavir + lamivudine provides the first once-daily nucleoside backbone across childhood that can be used to simplify ART.

Dataset Information

A Comfort Survey of Timolol Hemihydrate 0.5% Solution Once or Twice Daily vs Timolol Maleate in Sorbate.

Publications

A Comfort Survey of Timolol Hemihydrate 0.5% Solution Once or Twice Daily vs Timolol Maleate in Sorbate.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets