PURPOSE: To compare the effects of nipradilol and carteolol on intraocular pressure (IOP) when added to latanoprost treatment for glaucoma patients. METHODS:Fifty patients with primary open-angle glaucoma were treated with latanoprost 0.005% once daily for 3 months. Then they were assigned to one of two groups randomly. One group received nipradilol 0.25% twice daily (nipradilol preceding group; n = 25), and the other carteolol hydrochloride 2% twice daily (carteolol preceding group; n = 25), for 3 months in addition to latanoprost. Then, nipradilol and carteolol were switched, and the subjects were treated for 3 more months. One eye was selected randomly for analysis. RESULTS: In the nipradilol preceding group, IOP was 21.4 +/- 2.3 mmHg (mean +/- SD) at baseline, and 16.8 +/- 1.9 mmHg at the end of latanoprost monotherapy (P < 0.01). The addition of nipradilol decreased IOP to 15.8 +/- 1.7 mmHg, and the change to carteolol, to 15.3 +/- 2.0 mmHg. In the carteolol preceding group, IOP was 21.2 +/- 2.0 mmHg at baseline, and 17.0 +/- 2.1 mmHg at the end of latanoprost monotherapy (P < 0.01). The addition of carteolol decreased IOP to 15.4 +/- 1.8 mmHg, and the change to nipradilol, to 16.3 +/- 1.9 mmHg. Additional IOP reduction was greater with carteolol than with nipradilol (cross-over analysis of variance; P = 0.0005). CONCLUSIONS: Both nipradilol and carteolol have additive effects when used in combination with latanoprost. Carteolol, however, may have a more potent effect than nipradilol. Copyright Japanese Ophthalmological Society 2006.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To compare the effects of nipradilol and carteolol on intraocular pressure (IOP) when added to latanoprost treatment for glaucomapatients. METHODS: Fifty patients with primary open-angle glaucoma were treated with latanoprost 0.005% once daily for 3 months. Then they were assigned to one of two groups randomly. One group received nipradilol 0.25% twice daily (nipradilol preceding group; n = 25), and the other carteolol hydrochloride 2% twice daily (carteolol preceding group; n = 25), for 3 months in addition to latanoprost. Then, nipradilol and carteolol were switched, and the subjects were treated for 3 more months. One eye was selected randomly for analysis. RESULTS: In the nipradilol preceding group, IOP was 21.4 +/- 2.3 mmHg (mean +/- SD) at baseline, and 16.8 +/- 1.9 mmHg at the end of latanoprost monotherapy (P < 0.01). The addition of nipradilol decreased IOP to 15.8 +/- 1.7 mmHg, and the change to carteolol, to 15.3 +/- 2.0 mmHg. In the carteolol preceding group, IOP was 21.2 +/- 2.0 mmHg at baseline, and 17.0 +/- 2.1 mmHg at the end of latanoprost monotherapy (P < 0.01). The addition of carteolol decreased IOP to 15.4 +/- 1.8 mmHg, and the change to nipradilol, to 16.3 +/- 1.9 mmHg. Additional IOP reduction was greater with carteolol than with nipradilol (cross-over analysis of variance; P = 0.0005). CONCLUSIONS: Both nipradilol and carteolol have additive effects when used in combination with latanoprost. Carteolol, however, may have a more potent effect than nipradilol. Copyright Japanese Ophthalmological Society 2006.