PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of a fixed combination (FC) of bimatoprost (BIM) and timolol (TIM) compared with each of the active components for 3 months. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two double-masked, randomized, multicenter parallel studies of FC (once-daily, mornings), BIM (once-daily, evenings), or TIM (twice-daily) were conducted in 1061 patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension. RESULTS:Mean diurnal decreases from baseline intraocular pressure (IOP) at month 3 were 8.1, 7.9, and 6.4 mm Hg for the FC, BIM, and TIM groups, respectively. The proportion of patients with a mean diurnal percent reduction from baseline in IOP of more than 20% across all visits was 81.8% (436/533), 72.1% (191/265), and 49.8% (131/263) for the FC, BIM, and TIM groups, respectively (P<0.001 for FC vs. BIM and FC vs. TIM). The proportion of patients achieving an IOP of less than 18 mm Hg at all time points was 39.2% (209/533), 28.7% (76/265), and 12.2% (32/263) for the FC, BIM, and TIM groups, respectively (P=0.003 for FC vs. BIM, and P<0.001 for FC vs. TIM). The most commonly reported treatment-related adverse event was conjunctival hyperemia, with the greatest incidence in BIM (38.5%, 102/265), followed by FC (22.7%, 121/533, P<0.0001 vs. BIM) and TIM (6.8%, 18/263; P<0.001 vs. FC). CONCLUSIONS:FC was statistically significantly more effective than BIM or TIM for most comparisons, and safer than BIM with respect to common ocular adverse events. FC represents a convenient, therapeutic advantage over separate bottles.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of a fixed combination (FC) of bimatoprost (BIM) and timolol (TIM) compared with each of the active components for 3 months. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two double-masked, randomized, multicenter parallel studies of FC (once-daily, mornings), BIM (once-daily, evenings), or TIM (twice-daily) were conducted in 1061 patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension. RESULTS: Mean diurnal decreases from baseline intraocular pressure (IOP) at month 3 were 8.1, 7.9, and 6.4 mm Hg for the FC, BIM, and TIM groups, respectively. The proportion of patients with a mean diurnal percent reduction from baseline in IOP of more than 20% across all visits was 81.8% (436/533), 72.1% (191/265), and 49.8% (131/263) for the FC, BIM, and TIM groups, respectively (P<0.001 for FC vs. BIM and FC vs. TIM). The proportion of patients achieving an IOP of less than 18 mm Hg at all time points was 39.2% (209/533), 28.7% (76/265), and 12.2% (32/263) for the FC, BIM, and TIM groups, respectively (P=0.003 for FC vs. BIM, and P<0.001 for FC vs. TIM). The most commonly reported treatment-related adverse event was conjunctival hyperemia, with the greatest incidence in BIM (38.5%, 102/265), followed by FC (22.7%, 121/533, P<0.0001 vs. BIM) and TIM (6.8%, 18/263; P<0.001 vs. FC). CONCLUSIONS:FC was statistically significantly more effective than BIM or TIM for most comparisons, and safer than BIM with respect to common ocular adverse events. FC represents a convenient, therapeutic advantage over separate bottles.
Authors: Gerrett Brief; Tobias Lammich; Edgar Nagel; Stefan Pfennigsdorf; Sabine Pfennigsdorf; Christoph W Spraul; Selwyn Ho Journal: Clin Ophthalmol Date: 2010-10-05
Authors: Stefan Pfennigsdorf; Leo de Jong; Stefan Makk; Yvette Fournichot; Alain Bron; Robert J Morgan-Warren; John Maltman Journal: Clin Ophthalmol Date: 2013-06-21