Literature DB >> 11004287

Long-term intraocular pressure-lowering efficacy and safety of timolol maleate gel-forming solution 0.5% compared with Timoptic XE 0.5% in a 12-month study.

H I Schenker1, L H Silver.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the long-term intraocular pressure-lowering efficacy and safety of timolol maleate gel-forming solution 0.5% (Timolol GFS 0.5%, Alcon Research Ltd, Fort Worth, Texas) compared with Timoptic XE 0.5% (Merck, Inc, West Point, Pennsylvania) in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension.
METHODS: Two hundred forty-one patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension, who had intraocular pressure between 22 and 36 mm Hg in at least one eye, were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either Timolol GFS 0.5% once daily or Timoptic XE 0.5% once daily, in a 12-month randomized, multicenter, double-masked, prospective study. The primary efficacy variable was mean trough intraocular pressure measured at 8:00 AM, approximately 24 hours after dosing.
RESULTS: The Timolol GFS 0.5% group produced significant trough intraocular pressure reductions from a baseline of 4.5 to 5.2 mm Hg (P =.0001), compared with reductions of 4.1 to 5. 3 mm Hg (P =.0001) in the Timoptic XE 0.5% group. The difference in mean intraocular pressure between the two treatments was 0.9 mm Hg or less, and the upper 95% confidence limit between groups was 0.92 mm Hg or less at all time points, demonstrating both clinical and statistical equivalence. A similar percentage of patients in the Timolol GFS 0.5% group (71%) and Timoptic XE group (72%) had clinically relevant reductions in intraocular pressure. There was no significant difference in the safety profiles of the two treatments.
CONCLUSION: Both treatments were clinically effective in lowering intraocular pressure and maintaining the reductions over long-term use. Timolol GFS 0.5% is a safe and effective therapy for open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension and is both clinically and statistically equivalent to Timoptic XE 0.5% in reducing intraocular pressure.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2000        PMID: 11004287     DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9394(00)00458-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol        ISSN: 0002-9394            Impact factor:   5.258


  6 in total

1.  Comparing the efficacy of latanoprost (0.005%), bimatoprost (0.03%), travoprost (0.004%), and timolol (0.5%) in the treatment of primary open angle glaucoma.

Authors:  Deepak Mishra; Bibhuti Prassan Sinha; Mahendra Singh Kumar
Journal:  Korean J Ophthalmol       Date:  2014-09-18

2.  Development of topical ophthalmic In Situ gel-forming estradiol delivery system intended for the prevention of age-related cataracts.

Authors:  Udaya K Kotreka; Vicki L Davis; Moji C Adeyeye
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-02-21       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 3.  Generics versus brand-named drugs for glaucoma: the debate continues.

Authors:  Shibal Bhartiya; Deepika Dhingra
Journal:  Rom J Ophthalmol       Date:  2020 Jul-Sep

4.  North American cost analysis of brand name versus generic drugs for the treatment of glaucoma.

Authors:  Monali S Malvankar-Mehta; Lucy Feng; Cindy Ml Hutnik
Journal:  Clinicoecon Outcomes Res       Date:  2019-12-16

5.  Stimuli sensitive hydrogels for ophthalmic drug delivery: A review.

Authors:  Swatantra Ks Kushwaha; Prachi Saxena; Ak Rai
Journal:  Int J Pharm Investig       Date:  2012-04

Review 6.  Advanced drug delivery and targeting technologies for the ocular diseases.

Authors:  Jaleh Barar; Ayuob Aghanejad; Marziyeh Fathi; Yadollah Omidi
Journal:  Bioimpacts       Date:  2016-03-30
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.