Search

Purpose: To evaluate 24-h efficacy of travoprost/timolol fixed combination (TTFC) vslatanoprost/timolol fixed combination (LTFC) in exfoliative glaucoma (XFG)., Design: A prospective, single-masked, crossover, active-controlled, randomized 24-h comparison., Methods: After up to a 6-week medicine-free period, XFG patients were randomized to either TTFC or LTFC for 3 months, dosed each evening, and then changed to the opposite treatment for another 3 months. At the end of the washout, and both treatment periods, a 24-h intraocular pressure (IOP) curve was measured., Results: In total, 40 patients completed the study. The TTFC group showed a lower mean absolute 24-h IOP (18.7±2.6 vs 19.6±2.6 mm Hg, P<0.001), maximum IOP (20.5±2.6 vs 21.5±2.6 mm Hg, P<0.001) and 24-h IOP range (3.4±1.3 vs 4.1±1.6 mm Hg, P=0.01). At individual time points, TTFC showed reduced IOPs compared with LTFC, after a Bonferroni correction, at 1000, 1800, and 2200 hours (P≤0.04). No statistical differences existed at hours: 0600, 1400, and 0200 (P≥0.05) and for the minimum IOP (P=0.09)., Conclusions: This study suggests that evening-dosed TTFC may provide greater 24-h IOP reduction, primarily at the 1800 hours time point, compared with LTFC in XFG.

Aims: To compare supine nighttime intraocular pressure measurements with Perkins applanation tonometry to 24-h sitting intraocular pressures with Goldmann applanation tonometry., Methods: A prospective, untreated, uncontrolled, observational cohort of qualified consecutive ocular hypertensive or primary open-angle glaucoma patients. Patients underwent sitting intraocular pressure measurements over 24-h by Goldmann and patients had their supine nighttime intraocular pressure measurements by Perkins., Results: In 100 completed patients, the mean intraocular pressure at 1000, 2200, 0200 and 0600 hours while sitting was 22.5+/-3.7 mm Hg, and in the supine position, 23.5+/-4.3 mm Hg (P<0.001). The mean sitting Goldmann intraocular pressures across the three daytime points was 23.3+/-3.4 mm Hg and across three nighttime points was 21.5+/-4.0 mm Hg (P<0.001). In contrast, the mean daytime sitting Goldmann intraocular pressure was not different than the mean nighttime supine intraocular pressure evaluated with Perkins (22.8+/-4.4 mm Hg, P=0.07). However, only 70% of patients were within 1.0 mm Hg of the highest daytime reading for all nighttime supine and sitting intraocular pressures., Conclusion: This study suggests that with Perkins applanation tonometry the untreated mean supine intraocular pressures are not higher at night than daytime sitting Goldmann applanation tonometry. However, the highest daytime sitting intraocular pressure measurement does not consistently predict the highest nighttime sitting or supine intraocular pressure value.

Purpose: To evaluate 24-hr intraocular pressure (IOP) and blood pressure (BP) with timolol or latanoprost/timolol fixed combination (LTFC)., Methods: Patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension with normal blood pressure were randomized to LTFC, dosed each evening, or timolol dosed twice daily in a cross-over design for 8 weeks and the opposite medicine for 8 weeks. IOP was measured at 02:00, 06:00, 10:00, 14:00, 18:00 and 22:00 hours in the sitting position with Goldmann applanation tonometry and BP monitoring every 30 min while awake and every hour while asleep at the end of each 8-week treatment period., Results: Twenty-nine patients had a 24-hr baseline IOP of 26.3 +/- 2.5 mmHg, systolic BP (SBP) of 121.4 +/- 12.4 mmHg, diastolic BP (DBP) 72.9 +/- 7.1 mmHg, and ocular perfusion pressure (OPP) of 33.9 +/- 5.7 mmHg. No statistical differences were found between untreated and treated 24-hr SBP, DBP, mean BP (MBP), heart rate, or nocturnal BP dipping status with either medication. LTFC lowered IOP more at each timepoint compared to timolol (difference between treatments 2.7 mmHg, p = 0.0002)., Conclusions: Neither timolol or evening-dosed LTFC reduced SBP, DBP, MBP, OPP, or increased nocturnal dipping. LTFC was more effective than timolol in decreasing IOP.

Purpose: To determine the incidence of glaucomatous progression at mean intraocular pressure (IOP) levels in patients with ocular hypertension (OHT)., Methods: A retrospective, multicentre, cohort analysis of 230 OHT patients with 5 years of follow-up evaluated for risk factors associated with progressive optic disc and visual field loss to determine the incidence of glaucomatous progression., Results: Forty percent of patients with IOPs > or = 24 mmHg, 18% of patients with IOPs of 21-23 mmHg, 11% of patients with IOPs with 18-20 mmHg, and 3% of patients with IOPs of < or = 17 mmHg progressed to glaucoma. The mean IOP was 19.8+/-2.4 mmHg in the stable group and 21.7+/-2.6 mmHg in the progressed group (P=0.0004). The highest average peak IOP was 23.4+/-4.0 mmHg in the stable group and 25.2+/-3.1 mmHg in the progressed group (P=0.006). Based on the pachymetry values for central corneal thickness, patients with thinner corneas more often progressed to glaucoma (P<0.0001). A multivariant regression analysis to determine risk factors for progression was positive primarily for higher peak IOPs, older age, male gender, argon laser trabeculoplasty, visual acuity > or = 20/50, and no topical medical therapy or beta-blocker therapy prior to the study., Conclusions: IOP reduction within the normal range over 5 years of follow-up reduces the chance of progression to primary open-angle glaucoma in OHT patients.

Objective: To evaluate open-angle glaucoma patients, who were insufficiently controlled on latanoprost monotherapy, to determine the 24 h intraocular pressure (IOP) efficacy and safety when changing them to dorzolamide/timolol (DTFC) or latanoprost/timolol fixed combination (LTFC) or adding DTFC., Methods: A prospective, observer-masked, placebo-controlled, crossover, comparison. Consecutive adults with primary open-angle or exfoliative glaucoma who exhibit a mean baseline IOP >21 mm Hg on latanoprost monotherapy were randomised for 3 months to: DTFC, LTFC or DTFC and latanoprost. Patients were then crossed over to the next treatment for periods 2 and 3. At the end of the latanoprost run-in and after each 3-month treatment period, patients underwent 24 h IOP monitoring., Results: 31 patients completed this study. All three adjunctive therapies significantly reduced the IOP at each time point and for the mean 24 h curve, except at 18:00 and 02:00 with DTFC and 02:00 with LTFC. When the three treatments were compared directly, the DTFC and latanoprost therapy demonstrated lower IOPs versus the other treatment groups, including: the mean 24 h pressure, maximum as well as minimum levels and individual time points following a modified Bonferroni correction (p<0.0032)., Conclusions: This study showed DTFC, LTFC and the addition of DTFC to latanoprost significantly decrease the IOP compared with latanoprost alone, but the latter therapy regime yields the greatest IOP reduction.

Aim: To evaluate 24 h intraocular pressure (IOP) and blood pressure (BP) with bimatoprost or latanoprost in patients with normal-tension glaucoma., Design: Prospective, randomised, crossover, active-controlled, observer-masked study., Methods: After a 6-week medicine-free period, we randomised patients to either latanoprost or bimatoprost for 8 weeks and then to the opposite medicine for 8 weeks. At baseline, and at the end of each treatment period, we evaluated IOP and BP at 08:00 and then every 2 h over the 24 h day. Diastolic ocular perfusion pressure (DOPP) was calculated from the above parameters., Results: Forty completed patients had a 24 h untreated baseline IOP of 15.5 (2.3) mm Hg, and a DOPP of 59.2 (6.1) mm Hg. Both treatments lowered IOP at each time point (p<0.006), and over the 24 h curve (p<0.001, both medicines 13.1 mm Hg, 16% decrease). No difference existed between treatments in absolute IOP, at each time point, and over the 24 h curve (p>or=0.26). Additionally, no differences were found between treated 24 h systolic (p>or=0.29) and diastolic BP (p>or=0.12). The mean 24 h DOPP for latanoprost was increased from baseline (3%, p = 0.031) but not for bimatoprost (2%, p = 0.21). However, no difference in DOPP existed between treatments at any time point or over the 24 h curve (p>or=0.17). No difference was observed between treatments for any adverse event (p>0.05)., Conclusions: In patients with normal-tension glaucoma, both bimatoprost and latanoprost reduce the 24 h intraocular pressure from untreated baseline to a similar extent. Latanoprost is associated with slightly improved ocular diastolic perfusion pressure over 24 h but similar absolute perfusion levels to that of bimatoprost.

Purpose: To describe progression and non-progression rates at individual mean intraocular pressure (IOP) levels for patients with primary open-angle and exfoliative glaucoma., Methods: A meta-analysis of five previously published retrospective studies describing progression and non-progression rates at individual intraocular pressure levels over 5 or more years of follow-up. All patients had primary open-angle (four studies) or exfoliative glaucoma (one study)., Results: This meta-analysis included 822 patients of whom 655 (80%) had primary openangle glaucoma and 167 (20%) had exfoliative glaucoma. In total, 220 patients progressed (27%), while 602 (73%) remained stable over 5 years. The mean IOP was 20.0 for progressed and 17.1 mmHg for stable patients (p=0.0004). The peak IOP was 29.1 for progressed and 23.6 mmHg for stable patients (p=0.0014). At an IOP level >18 mmHg, 49% of patients remained stable; at 18 mmHg, 78%; between 13 and 17 mmHg, 82%; and <13 mmHg, 96%. Additional factors associated with progression were older age (p=0.0004) and exfoliative glaucoma (p=0.0001). However, multivariant regression analysis identified only mean IOP as a risk factor for progression (p=0.039)., Conclusions: This study suggests that maintaining an IOP well within the normal range over 5 years in patients with primary open-angle or exfoliative glaucoma helps to prevent glaucomatousprogression.

Purpose: To compare the 12-hour efficacy and safety of dorzolamide/timolol fixed combination (DTFC) dosed twice daily versus latanoprost dosed every evening following a timolol run-in in primary open-angle glaucoma patients., Methods: Following a 6-week timolol run-in patients were randomized to either DTFC or latanoprost for 6 weeks and then changed to the opposite treatment for 6 weeks. At the end of the run-in, and the end of each treatment period, the intraocular pressure (IOP) was measured every 2 hours between 8:00 AM and 8:00 PM., Results: Thirty-one patients completed at least one time point in both treatment periods. Both treatments reduced the IOP for the diurnal curve, and at each time point, from the timolol run-in baseline (p<0.0001). The 12-hour IOP on timolol was 22.1+/-2.8 mmHg, whereas on DTFC it was 18.1+/-2.8 and latanoprost 18.3+/-3.1 mmHg (p=0.4). Further, there was no statistical difference in IOP between treatments at any time point (p< or =0.1). There was no statistical difference for any individual adverse event between treatments (p>0.05)., Conclusions: This study suggests that following a timolol run-in both DTFC and latanoprost provide comparable daytime efficacy and safety.

Purpose: To evaluate efficacy, safety and quality of life in ocular hypertensive or open-angle glaucoma patients changed to latanoprost from previous therapy., Methods: A prospective, multicenter, active-controlled design in which qualified patients had their previous therapy substituted for latanoprost and were followed for at least three months., Results: In 1068 patients, latanoprost was continued 92% throughout the 36-month observation period. Latanoprost treatment reduced the intraocular pressure (1OP)(p < 0.001) when compared to previous monotherapies including: beta-blockers (-4.0 +/- 3.7 mmHg, 42%), alpha-antagonists (-3.9 +/- 3.0 mmHg, 14%), miotics (-3.8 +/- 3.5 mmHg, 2%), or carbonic anhydrase inhibitors (CAI) (-3.8 +/- 3.6 mmHg, n = 16%), and adjunctive therapy including: beta-blocker and CAI (-3.7 +/- 3.1 mmHg, n = 12%), alpha-agonist (-3.7 +/- 3.4 mmHg, n = 5%), or pilocarpine (-3.4 +/- 3.7 mmHg, n = 6%), or CAI and alpha-agonist (-4.6 +/- 6.4 mm Hg, n = 2%)(p < 0.0017). The most common adverse event with latanoprost was ocular allergy (1.5% incidence). Patients showed a preference for latanoprost for many systemic and ocular quality of life measures on a non-validated questionnaire (p < 0.05)., Conclusions: In a clinical setting, patients who have their mono- and adjunctive therapy treatment substituted for latanoprost may on average experience reduced IOP, decreased side effects and increased quality of life measures.

Background/aims: To evaluate the efficacy of brimonidine purite versus dorzolamide given twice daily in primary open angle glaucoma or ocular hypertensive subjects., Methods: In this double masked, multicentre, prospective, crossover comparison 33 subjects were randomised to brimonidine purite or dorzolamide for the first 4 week treatment period after a 4 week washout. Subjects began the opposite treatment for the second 4 week period after another 4 week washout. Intraocular pressure (IOP) was measured at 08:00 (trough) and 10:00, 18:00, and 20:00 hours after dosing at each baseline and at the end of each treatment period., Results: The baseline diurnal IOP was 22.9 (SD 2.8) for brimonidine purite and 22.2 (SD 2.4) mm Hg for dorzolamide. The trough IOP following 4 weeks of therapy was 21.0 (SD 3.7) for brimonidine purite and 21.0 (SD 3.1) mm Hg for dorzolamide (p = 0.90). The mean diurnal IOP was 19.3 (SD 3.1) for brimonidine purite and 19.8 (SD 2.4) mm Hg for dorzolamide (p = 0.46). Dorzolamide caused more ocular stinging upon instillation (n = 8) than brimonidine purite (n = 1) (p = 0.02). No statistical differences existed between groups for systemic adverse events., Conclusions: This study suggests that brimonidine purite and dorzolamide each given twice daily have similar efficacy in primary open angle glaucoma or ocular hypertensive subjects. However, a trend was observed at 10:00 of greater brimonidine purite efficacy compared with dorzolamide.

Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of latanoprost 0.005% given topically every evening versus brimonidine 0.2% given topically twice daily in primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertensive patients., Methods: This was a multicenter, crossover, double-masked comparison. After a 28-day treatment-free period, patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension were randomized for 6 weeks to brimonidine or latanoprost and then crossed over to the opposite treatment. At baseline and after each treatment period, patients underwent intraocular pressure measurements every 2 hours from 08:00 to 20:00., Results: In 33 patients the mean baseline trough (08:00) was 23.2 +/- 2.1 mm Hg and the diurnal curve pressure was 19.8 +/- 2.7 mm Hg. The trough and diurnal intraocular pressures for brimonidine were 19.6 +/- 3.4 mm Hg and 17.6 +/- 2.2 mm Hg, respectively. Brimonidine statistically reduced the pressure from baseline at each time point except hours 10 and 12 (P =.14 and P =.21, respectively). For latanoprost, the trough and diurnal pressures were 16.2 +/- 2.9 mm Hg and 15.4 +/- 2.5 mm Hg, respectively, and the pressure was statistically reduced at each time point (P <.001) and for the diurnal curve (P <.001). When compared directly, the intraocular pressure level for latanoprost was lower than brimonidine for the diurnal pressure and at each time point (P <.05). One patient was discontinued early from latanoprost treatment because of eyelid swelling; also, latanoprost caused more hyperemia than brimonidine (P =.04)., Conclusion: This study suggests latanoprost dosed daily in the evening statistically reduces intraocular pressure more during daytime and evening hours than brimonidine dosed twice daily. Brimonidine may not consistently decrease the pressure 10 and 12 hours past dosing from nontreated levels.

Purpose: To compare the safety and efficacy of bimatoprost and latanoprost in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension., Methods: This was a 30-day, multicenter, double-masked, randomized, clinical trial. Patients (n = 64) diagnosed with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension were randomly assigned to receive bimatoprost 0.03%, latanoprost 0.005%, or vehicle topically in both eyes once daily, in the evening, for 29 days. The primary endpoint was the reduction in IOP from baseline on day 14 and day 29. Secondary outcome measures included eye examinations and safety parameters., Results: Bimatoprost and latanoprost significantly lowered IOP from baseline (p <.001). Bimatoprost lowered IOP more than latanoprost at every timepoint measured (bimatoprost: 25-34% reduction, 5.9-8.9 mm Hg; latanoprost: 20-31% reduction, 4.4-7.9 mm Hg), although the between-group differences did not reach statistical significance. Over the 12-hour course of IOP measurements on day 29, bimatoprost provided better diurnal IOP control than latanoprost (p =.0378, area under the curve of diurnal IOP reductions, 1-way ANOVA with pairwise t-test). Both treatment regimens were safe and well tolerated, with no significant between-group differences in reports of specific adverse events. The most common side effect was conjunctival hyperemia, which was similarly apparent in the bimatoprost and latanoprost treatment groups., Conclusions: At the end of this 30-day trial, once-daily bimatoprost 0.03% provided better diurnal IOP control than latanoprost and was safe and well tolerated in patients with ocular hypertension and glaucoma.

Purpose: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of adding unoprostone isopropyl 0.12% vs placebo both given twice daily to latanoprost 0.005% given every evening., Methods: We treated 41 patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension with latanoprost 0.005% for 1 month and then randomized each to either placebo or unoprostone isopropyl 0.12% for 8 weeks. Diurnal intraocular pressures were measured at 08:00, 10:00, 12:00, 18:00, and 20:00 hours, both at baseline (time of randomization) and after 8 weeks of treatment., Results: Twenty patients were treated in the placebo group and 21 in the unoprostone isopropyl group. After 8 weeks of treatment in the placebo group, the trough intraocular pressure at 08:00 and the diurnal pressure were 20.4 +/- 3.2 and 19.1 +/- 2.2 mm Hg, respectively. In the unoprostone isopropyl group the pressures were 19.4 +/- 3.3 and 18.0 +/- 1.7 mm Hg (P =.22 and P =.042), respectively. However, eyes with a baseline pressure of 22 mm Hg or greater on latanoprost had an average 3.3 mm Hg greater reduction at trough (P <.01) and a 2.1 mm Hg greater decrease in diurnal pressure (P =.030) after adding unoprostone isopropyl (n = 14 eyes) compared with placebo (n = 16 eyes; P <.001). In addition, the range of the pressures throughout the diurnal curve was reduced from 2.7 mm Hg on latanoprost alone to 1.4 mm Hg after adding unoprostone isopropyl. Adverse events were similar between groups, and no patients were discontinued because of safety reasons., Conclusions: This study suggests that unoprostone isopropyl can safely improve the diurnal curve characteristics in patients who continue to have an elevated pressure on latanoprost 0.005% alone.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the success rate ofmonotherapy with latanoprost 0.005% once daily versus brimonidine 0.2% twice daily in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Patients who were prescribed latanoprost or brimonidine as monotherapy were included in this study, and their consecutive charts were retrospectively reviewed. The primary efficacy variable was success of therapy, defined as a reduction in intraocular pressure > or =3 mm Hg without an adverse event leading to discontinuation over a potential of six months of therapy. We included 157 patients in this study. In the latanoprost group, 64 of 92 (70%) were considered successes; 26 of 65 (40%) were successful with brimonidine (P < 0.001). Nine failed brimonidine therapy, and one latanoprost, because of an adverse event, and the rest failed because of inadequate intraocular pressure response. The change from baseline in intraocular pressure was significantly greater with latanoprost (mean +/- S.D., 21.6 +/- 5.1 to 17.1 +/- 3.3 mm Hg) than brimonidine (23.7 +/- 5.6 to 21.9 +/- 5.7 mm Hg) (P = 0.001). Overall, 52 (80%) brimonidine- and 41 (45%) latanoprost-treated patients required additional visit(s) to adjust therapy to further lower intraocular pressure or to assess an adverse event (P < 0.001). In conclusion, latanoprost more likely provides a successful response to therapy than brimonidine when used as monotherapy in primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertensive patients.

Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of brimonidine compared with dorzolamide given three times daily as monotherapy in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension., Methods: In a double-masked, multicenter, crossover comparison in 40 patients, qualified patients were washed out from their previous medication and randomized to dorzolamide 2% or brimonidine 0.2% for the first 6-week treatment period. Patients then were washed out for 2 weeks and started on the opposite medication for the second 6-week period., Results: Baseline intraocular pressure for all 40 subjects (76 eyes) was 24.1 +/- 2.0 mm Hg. This study found that the 8:00 AM trough intraocular pressure after 6 weeks of therapy for dorzolamide was 20. 7 +/- 3.1 mm Hg and for brimonidine 20.8 +/- 3.2 mm Hg (P =.99). The peak intraocular pressure (2 hours after dosing) for dorzolamide was 18.6 +/- 3.4 mm Hg and for brimonidine 17.8 +/- 2.7 mm Hg (P =.10 ). Dorzolamide caused more stinging upon instillation (P <.01) and brimonidine more itching (P =.01). No statistical differences existed between groups for systemic adverse events. Six patients, all on brimonidine, were discontinued from a treatment period early. Of these, two were discontinued for inadequate pressure control, two with dizziness and fatigue, one with ocular pain, and one for lifestyle reasons (P =.07)., Conclusions: This study found similar efficacy and safety between monotherapy treatment with dorzolamide or brimonidine when each was given three times daily to patients with ocular hypertension or primary open-angle glaucoma.

Purpose: To evaluate the association of latanoprost with anterior chamber uveitis in glaucoma patients., Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 527 charts in latanoprost treated patients with: no prior uveitis (Group 1); prior uveitis but were inactive at the time of the study (Group 2); and active uveitis (Group 3)., Results: In Group 1 five (1.0%) of 505 patients developed uveitis after beginning latanoprost. The uveitis was trace to 1+ cell in severity and delayed in onset 99.8+/-73.9 days In Group 2 three of 13 (23.1%) patients developed delayed uveitis (trace to 1+ cell). In Group 3 zero of nine (0%) patients had worsened inflammation and the intraocular pressure remained unchanged (22.8+/-7.8 mmHg to 22.0+/-7.3 mmHg) after beginning latanoprost (p=0.38)., Conclusion: In patients without a prior history a mild delayed uveitis with latanoprost treatment may develop rarely. In patients with a uveitis history, a mild delayed exacerbation potentially may occur and the intraocular pressure may not be decreased in active uveitis.

Purpose: To compare the efficacy and safety of timolol hemihydrate 0.5% (Betimol, Ciba Vision Ophthalmics, Duluth, Georgia) vs timolol maleate gel-forming solution 0.5% (Timoptic-XE, Merck, Blue Bell, Pennsylvania), both given every morning added to latanoprost 0.005% given every evening., Methods: A multicenter, randomized, crossover comparison was performed in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. After at least a 4-week run-in period with latanoprost 0.005% (Xalatan, Pharmacia & Upjohn, Kalamazoo, Michigan), both eyes from 30 patients (60 eyes) were randomly assigned to one of the two adjunctive therapies, timolol hemihydrate or timolol maleate gel for 6 weeks. At the end of the first period, the study medicine was discontinued for a 2-week washout period. Patients then received the opposite medication for the second 6-week period. This study had an 80% power to exclude a 1-mm Hg difference between groups., Results: The baseline intraocular pressure after 1 month of latanoprost treatment only for all 30 subjects was 20.8 +/- 2.6 mm Hg. After 6 weeks of timolol hemihydrate, the 24-hour trough intraocular pressure was 17.5 +/- 3.4 mm Hg, and for timolol maleate gel, 17.9 +/- 3.5 mm Hg (P = .74). The peak level 2 hours after dosing for timolol hemihydate was 16.4 +/- 2.6 mm Hg, and for timolol maleate gel, 16.8 +/- 3.8 mm Hg (P = .84). No patient was discontinued from the study because of lack of efficacy. No differences were observed between treatments in visual acuity, anterior segment findings, or adverse events., Conclusions: Once-daily beta-blocker therapy is an effective ocular hypotensive adjunctive treatment 24 hours after dosing when added to latanoprost, for which timolol hemihydrate 0.5% solution and timolol maleate gel 0.5% appear equally effective and safe.

Purpose: To compare the 24-hour diurnal ocular hypotensive efficacy of two dosing regimens of latanoprost, once daily (8 AM or 10 PM), vs timolol maleate, twice daily., Methods: We measured six diurnal intraocular pressure curves (6 AM, 10 AM, 2 PM, 6 PM, 10 PM, and 2 AM) in one randomly selected eye of 34 Greek patients newly diagnosed with primary open-angle glaucoma. The first diurnal curve was an untreated baseline. Patients began taking timolol 0.5%, twice daily, for 2 months. Patients were randomly assigned to latanoprost 0.005% given at 8 AM or 10 PM for 1 month and then changed to the other dosing regimen for 1 month. A diurnal curve was performed after each dosing period., Results: The baseline diurnal pressure for all 34 subjects was 23.1 +/- 3.7 mm Hg. The average intraocular pressures at 6 AM for patients who were given latanoprost in the evening (17.9 +/- 2.9 mm Hg) was statistically lower than that in patients given timolol solution (20.1 +/- 2.5 mm Hg, P = .003); however, patients who were given timolol demonstrated a similar diurnal intraocular pressure (19.1 +/- 2.8 mm Hg) to both morning (18.8 +/- 3.7 mm Hg) and evening doses (18.8 +/- 3.6 mm Hg) of latanoprost (P =.329). When the two latanoprost dosages were compared directly, evening administration provided a statistically lower intraocular pressure at 10 AM (P = .0001) and morning administration at 10 PM (P = .0001). This study had an 80% power to exclude a 1.2-mm Hg difference between groups., Conclusions: This study indicates that in a small population, both latanoprost and timolol are effective in lowering intraocular pressure throughout a 24-hour period; however, latanoprost is most effective in the 12-hour to 24-hour period after administration.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate differences in efficacy and safety of latanoprost as monotherapy compared to adjunctive therapy in primary open-angle glaucoma. We reviewed records of 527 patients who were treated with latanoprost as mono- or adjunctive therapy to reduce the intraocular pressure. Each patient was treated at least three months unless they were discontinued due to an adverse event or lack of efficacy. In the monotherapy group (n=49) baseline intraocular pressure of 23.6+/-5.2 mm Hg fell to 18.4+/-4.3 mm Hg after 4.4+/-2.0 months of follow-up; in the adjunctive therapy group (n=39) baseline intraocular pressure of 21.8+/-5.7 mm Hg fell to 16.7+/-4.6 mm Hg following 4.3+/-1.8 months of therapy which was a similar change from baseline for both groups (P > 0.9). No differences were noted in the class or number of medicines to which latanoprost could be added including: beta-blockers, alpha-agonists and topical carbonic anhydrase inhibitors. The reasons for failure with monotherapy were mostly adverse events (10/15 patients) and with adjunctive therapy lack of efficacy (14/16 patients). Latanoprost is similarly effective as monotherapy and as an adjunctive agent in reducing the intraocular pressure. Latanoprost can be added successfully to a variety of classes of glaucoma medicines used commonly as adjunctive therapy.

Purpose: To compare the effect of unoprostone isopropyl 0.12% to that of timolol maleate 0.5% solution given twice daily on the diurnal curve of intraocular pressure (IOP) in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension., Methods: In this investigator-masked, single-center, parallel-group comparison, 36 patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive either unoprostone isopropyl 0.12% or placebo/timolol maleate 0.5% solution, respectively. A placebo-controlled diurnal curve on day 0 and active-controlled diurnal curves at weeks 2 and 4 were performed at 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 24 hours. At week 2, administration of unoprostone isopropyl twice daily was compared with administration of timolol maleate twice daily. At week 4, administration of unoprostone isopropyl three times daily was compared with administration of timolol maleate twice daily., Results: At the 24-hour 8:00 AM trough at week 2, administration of unoprostone isopropyl twice daily decreased IOP from 23.4 +/- 2.0 mmHg at baseline to 19.3 +/- 4.4 mmHg, and timolol maleate reduced IOP from 24.4 +/- 2.6 mmHg to 17.5 +/- 2.9 mmHg. At the 8:00 AM trough at week 4, unoprostone isopropyl given three times daily produced an IOP of 19.6 +/- 3.3 mmHg and timolol maleate resulted in an IOP of 19.4 +/- 3.0 mmHg. No statistical differences between groups were observed at any time point during either diurnal curve. Safety was similar in the two treatment groups, with no differences between groups in conjunctival hyperemia, anterior segment inflammation, or iris color change., Conclusion: Results of this short-term pilot trial indicate that unoprostone isopropyl may be safe and effective in reducing IOP from baseline when given twice or three times daily.

Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of timolol hemihydrate once daily versus timolol maleate gel forming solution once daily in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension., Methods: We prospectively randomized patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension to receive either timolol hemihydrate 0.5% solution or timolol maleate gel forming solution 0.5% every morning. The primary efficacy variable was the 8:00 AM trough intraocular pressure (IOP) 24 hours after administration., Results: Three months after initiation of therapy, baseline IOP had decreased from 23.6 +/- 1.9 mmHg to 18.3 +/- 2.8 mmHg in the group taking timolol hemihydrate (n = 22) and from 23.7 +/- 2.2 mmHg to 18.4 +/- 3.1 mmHg in the group receiving timolol maleate gel (n = 21) at the 24-hour trough level. This was not a significant difference between groups at 3 months. Also, no difference was observed between groups in the 2-hour post instillation IOP. Visual acuity was decreased in the group receiving timolol maleate gel compared with those receiving timolol hemihydrate one minute after instillation of study medicine at month 3. Otherwise, ocular and systemic safety were similar between groups. No differences between groups in cardiac pulse or systolic and diastolic blood pressure were observed., Conclusion: Timolol hemihydrate 0.5% solution given once a day appears to be as efficacious and safe in decreasing IOP as timolol maleate gel 0.5% given once a day.

Primary open-angle glaucoma is a condition associated with an elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) that is defined as optic degeneration with a slowly progressive deterioration of the visual field that may lead to blindness. More than 1 million Americans are being treated for glaucoma, and 80,000 are legally blind as a result of the disease. Glaucoma has its highest prevalence among the elderly population, with an incidence of approximately 1% in those older than 60 years, 3% in those between the ages of 70 and 80 years, and more than 9% in those older than 80 years. Treatment is directed at lowering high ocular pressures. The initial treatment, in most cases topical therapy with a beta-adrenergic blocking agent, reduces the IOP to help preserve sight. But such topical agents may also have adverse systemic effects on cardiac, pulmonary, central nervous system (CNS), and endocrine functions.

Purpose: To evaluate the ocular hypotensive effect and safety of carteolol hydrochloride 1% vs timolol maleate 0.5%., Methods: One hundred seventy-six patients with ocular hypertension or primary open-angle glaucoma were randomly assigned to receive either carteolol 1% twice a day or timolol maleate 0.5% solution twice a day in a randomized, double-masked, multicenter, parallel-group, active-control comparison trial during a 3-month period., Results: After 12 weeks, carteolol 1% reduced the mean +/- SE intraocular pressure from 25.0 +/- 0.3 to 19.5 +/- 0.3 mm Hg; timolol maleate 0.5% reduced the mean intraocular pressure from 25.2 +/- 0.3 to 19.6 +/- 0.3 mm Hg. The mean difference in trough intraocular pressure between carteolol and timolol maleate of -0.14 mm Hg was not significantly (P = .745) different (95% confidence limits, -0.97 to 0.70 mm Hg). Trough pulse and blood pressure also showed no consistent statistically significant differences between groups. The 2-hour postdose pulse, however, demonstrated a greater decrease in the timolol maleate than in the carteolol group (P < .001). Systemic and ocular signs and symptoms were similar between the groups except that the number of treatment-emergent reports of bradycardia was greater in the timolol maleate group (P = .039), and the carteolol group reported fewer ocular symptoms than the timolol maleate group did (P < .01)., Conclusions: Both carteolol 1% and timolol maleate 0.5% are highly effective in lowering intraocular pressure when measured at the end of the dosing interval. Carteolol 1% demonstrates an ocular hypotensive effect and safety profile similar to those of timolol maleate 0.5% solution.

Objective: To describe and compare the diurnal intraocular pressure (IOP) variation in patients with exfoliation glaucoma (EXG) and primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) who were treated with a solution of timolol maleate (0.5%) twice daily., Design: Consecutive Greek patients who were newly diagnosed as having EXG or POAG were prospectively investigated; they underwent 24-hour diurnal IOP measurements first without therapy and then 6 months afterward while they were being treated with timolol maleate (0.5%). After matching for age, 38 pairs of patients with these 2 types of glaucoma were compared., Results: Untreated patients with EXG had significantly higher IOP values for all time points assessed and a greater mean range of IOPs (11.8 mm Hg for EXG vs 7.6 mm Hg for POAG; P < or = .001). Following therapy with timolol maleate (0.5%) given twice daily, patients with EXG had higher IOP values for the measurements that were obtained at 6 and 10 AM, 10 PM, and 2 AM, a higher mean range of IOPs (7.0 mm Hg for EXG vs 5.6 mm Hg for POAG; P = .03), and a higher maximum IOP (mean, 24.9 mm Hg for EXG vs 20.9 mm Hg for POAG; P = .003). The reduction of the range of diurnal variation of IOP was more pronounced in patients with EXG than in patients with POAG (40% vs 26%; P = .04). Twenty-two (58%) of 38 patients with EXG and 20 (53%) of 38 patients with POAG had peak IOP values that were found outside office hours. Only 5 (13%) of the patients with EXG exhibited an IOP of 18 mm Hg or less at all time points compared with 12 (32%) of the patients with POAG (P = .05)., Conclusion: Despite a greater initial IOP reduction in the patients with EXG treated with timolol, a higher IOP and significant fluctuation in the diurnal curve of IOP during the time in which patients received therapy still characterized EXG from POAG.

Objective: To describe and compare the diurnal intraocular pressure (IOP) variation in patients with exfoliation glaucoma (EXG) and primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG)., Patients and Design: We prospectively investigated consecutive Greek patients with newly diagnosed untreated EXG and POAG. All patients were admitted to our ophthalmology department for 24-hour IOP measurements according to a standard protocol. After matching for age, we compared 40 pairs of patients with these 2 glaucomas., Results: Patients with EXG showed a significantly higher mean range of IOP (13.5 vs 8.5 mm Hg for POAG; unpaired t test, P < .001), higher maximum IOP (mean, 38.2 vs 26.9 mm Hg for POAG; unpaired t test, P < .001), and higher minimum IOP (mean, 24.7 vs 18.4 mm Hg for POAG; unpaired t test, P < .001) Patients with EXG more often demonstrated an IOP range higher than 15 mm Hg (35% vs only 7.5% for POAG). Importantly, in 45% of patients with EXG and 22.5% of patients with POAG, the peak level of IOP was found outside office hours. There was no significant difference in visual function (visual acuity, cupping, visual field) at diagnosis between the 2 glaucoma groups., Conclusion: Significant fluctuation in the diurnal curve of the IOP distinguishes EXG from POAG and may be an important factor in predicting any subsequent poor response to medical therapy.

Purpose: To determine whether high-density lipoprotein and total cholesterol levels were risk factors for increased intraocular pressure in patients with chronic open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension., Methods: We measured total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein, and total cholesterol/high-density lipoprotein ratio in 25 patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension who had taken no glaucoma medications for four weeks. We individually matched these patients to 25 control subjects who had no history of open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension, on the basis of age, race, gender, and history of vascular disease or diabetes mellitus., Results: We found no statistical difference in the high-density lipoprotein (P = .702) or total cholesterol (P = .177) levels or total cholesterol/high-density lipoprotein ratio between groups (P = .178, paired t test)., Conclusion: This study indicates that increased high-density lipoprotein and total cholesterol levels are not risk factors for increased intraocular pressure.

We evaluated the differences in the optic nerve head in patients with chronic open-angle glaucoma (HTG) and those with low-tension glaucoma with either relatively high (between 16 and 21 mmHg [LTGH]) or low (< or = 15 mmHg [LTGL]) intraocular pressures. We included 36 patients in this study. We found that LTGL patients had a significantly greater mean area of peripapillary atrophy inferior to the optic disc (0.65 +/- 0.38 mm2) than LTGH (0.40 +/- 0.38 mm2) or HTG (0.34 +/- 0.25 mm2) patients (p < 0.005). No significant difference was found between groups for the area of the neural rim, optic disc, cup/pallor discrepancy, or peripapillary halo, or in the diameter of the largest artery or vein in the inferior and superior peripapillary area. This study raises the question of whether a separate mechanism of damage could exist at the optic disc in patients whose intraocular pressure is < or = 15 mmHg because of a greater extent of peripapillary atrophy than in patients with higher intraocular pressures.

We studied 36 consecutive patients who underwent combined phacoemulsification and trabeculectomy to determine prognostic factors associated with intraocular pressure control one year postoperatively. In patients who were either easier (intraocular pressure < 16 mmHg, n = 19) or more difficult (> or = 16 mmHg, n = 17) to control, the mean intraocular pressure increased up to the fourth week postoperatively. In the more difficult to control group, however, the intraocular pressure continued to increase and a statistical difference between groups was noted by the second month postoperatively (P < 0.05). The peak intraocular pressure within the first month postoperatively was lower in patients easier to control long-term (P < 0.005). No statistical difference between groups in the filtering bleb or anterior chamber appearance, or postoperative complications, was noted (P > 0.05). This study suggests combined trabeculectomy and phacoemulsification is safe and effective in controlling intraocular pressure postoperatively. Determining from the early postoperative examination the long-term pressure control, however, is difficult.

We used a new portable noncontact tonometer for home tonometry on 26 patients with chronic open-angle glaucoma or suspected low-tension glaucoma. In an outpatient setting, the mean difference and correlation coefficient between the family member's noncontact tonometry values and the nursing staff's applanation tonometry values used as a control was 1.0mmHg and 0.894mmHg, respectively. The difference between the means was not statistically significant (P greater than .05, by Student's t test). At home, the variances of four noncontact tonometric values obtained every other hour did not differ significantly from those obtained in the outpatient setting by the nursing staff (P greater than .05). Five of 26 patients had their medical regimen changed based on the results of home tonometry. This study suggests that many nonmedical personnel can do noncontact tonometric scanning reliably. At home, noncontact tonometry may help evaluate a patient's intraocular pressure control.

Fifty-five patients with primary open-angle glaucoma and early glaucomatous damage who had medical therapy and laser trabeculoplasty were followed up for four to 11 years or until progressive glaucomatous damage was documented. Factors associated with the stability or progression of glaucoma were evaluated. Eyes with mean intraocular pressure higher than 21 mm Hg during the follow-up period uniformly had progressive glaucomatous changes. Conversely, eyes with mean intraocular pressure less than 17 mm Hg remained stable, and approximately half of the eyes with mean intraocular pressure between 17 and 21 mm Hg had progressive glaucomatous changes. Patients who remained stable were slightly younger than those with progressive glaucomatous changes (P less than .05), but initial optic nerve head appearance, initial visual field findings, number of medicines used, medical history, and patient gender or race were not statistically associated with stability or progression of the glaucoma. These findings reinforce the importance of intraocular pressure control in primary open-angle glaucoma and the need to identify other markers that help determine the proper level of intraocular pressure for individual patients.

PurposeTo evaluate the 24-h intraocular pressure (IOP) control of brimonidine/timolol fixed combination (BTFC) versusthe unfixed combination of its individual components, each dosed twice daily, in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension.MethodsAn observer-masked, randomized, crossover, active-controlled, two-centre comparison. Following a 6-week medicine-free period, patients were randomized to BTFC or to the unfixed combination of brimonidine and timolol for 3 months. Patients then were crossed over to the opposite treatment for another 3 months. At the end of the medicine-free period, and each treatment period, patients underwent 24-h IOP measurements at 0600, 1000, 1400, 1800, 2200, and 0200 hours.ResultsTwenty-eight patients completed this study. Both BTFC and the unfixed components showed a significant IOP reduction from untreated baseline (P<0.0001), and were statistically equal when compared directly, for each individual time point and for the 24-h IOP curve (P>0.05). The mean 24-h IOP was 24.6±1.9 for baseline, 19.2±1.9 for BTFC, and 19.2±1.6 mmHg for the unfixed components (P=1.0). Four patients were discontinued due to side effects. The most common ocular adverse event was ocular hyperaemia (n=3 with BTFC and n=5 with the unfixed components, P=0.7) and systemic adverse events were rare.ConclusionThis study suggests that both BTFC and the unfixed components of brimonidine and timolol provide a significant 24-h IOP reduction from untreated baseline, and statistically equal control when compared directly, at each time point and for the 24-h pressure curve.Eye (2008) 22, 1391–1397; doi:10.1038/sj.eye.6702906; published online 15 June 2007 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PurposeTo determine the predictive value of early Phase trials (I–II) for the ocular hypotensive efficacy observed in Phases III and IV.DesignA review of published literature.MethodsThis study evaluated 12 medicines in 65 articles in the literature with at least two phases available.ResultsFor medicines with Phase I results available (n=3), the average reduction in intraocular pressure (IOP) from untreated baseline was 16%, 26% for Phase II, 26% for Phase III, and 24% for Phase IV. For medicines with Phase II results available (n=6), the average reduction in IOP was 23%, 24% for Phase III, and 23% for Phase IV. For medicines with Phase III results available (n=11), the average reduction in IOP was 25% and 24% for Phase IV.ConclusionThis study indicates that early phase trials usually approximated the results of later regulatory studies and post-commercialization trials.Eye (2008) 22, 985–988; doi:10.1038/sj.eye.6702913; published online 22 June 2007 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PurposeTo provide initial validation of the Treatment Satisfaction Survey-Intraocular Pressure (TSS-IOP) quality-of-life survey that analyses specific issues related to side effects, patient satisfaction, and compliance.MethodsA prospective, observational cohort of 250 consecutive patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension was administered the TSS-IOP survey.ResultsFactors that correlated with patient satisfaction included perceived effectiveness of the medicine (F=7.47, P<0.001), ocular irritation (F=6.06, P<0.001), conjunctival hyperaemia (F=4.40, P<0.001), ease of use (F=8.52, P<0.001), and convenience of use (F=6.90, P<0.001). Patient compliance, acceptance of their illness, and knowledge of glaucoma were also related to perceived effectiveness of the medicine (P<0.001), ease of use (P<0.05) and convenience (P<0.001). Physician ratings of patient pressure control, side effects, and instillation problems also were significantly correlated to patient satisfaction (R=0.13–0.26, P=0.05–0.001). The physician ratings of patient compliance, however, were not significantly related to any dimension of patient satisfaction (P>0.05). Among monotherapy prostaglandin treatments, latanoprost demonstrated statistically greater satisfaction than bimatoprost or travoprost regarding conjunctival hyperaemia (P<0.05) and eye irritation (P<0.01).ConclusionsThis study provides initial evidence that patient satisfaction may be related to compliance, perceived effectiveness of treatment, adverse side effects, ease and convenience of use, acceptance of illness, and knowledge of glaucoma.Eye (2006) 20, 583–590. doi:10.1038/sj.eye.6701932; published online 3 June 2005 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To compare the efficacy and safety of brimonidine 0.2% vs unoprostone 0.15%, both added to timolol maleate 0.5% each given twice daily.Methods: In this prospective, multi-centred, double-masked, crossover comparison, patients were randomized to one treatment group for a 6-week treatment period, and then crossed over to the opposite treatment. Measurements were performed at 0800, 1000, 1600, 1800, and 2000 h at baseline and at the end of each treatment period.Results: In all, 33 patients entered this trial and 29 completed. The baseline trough intraocular pressure (IOP) was 23.3+/-2.4 and the diurnal curve IOP was 22.0+/-1.3 mmHg. For the brimonidine and timolol maleate treatment group, the trough IOP was 21.6+/-3.3 and the diurnal curve IOP was 19.8+/-2.1 mmHg, while the timolol and unoprostone treatment showed a trough IOP of 20.9+/-3.8 and a diurnal curve IOP of 19.3+/-2.4 mmHg. There was no significant difference between treatment groups at any time point for the diurnal curve, or in the reduction from baseline (P>0.05). Both treatments failed to statistically reduce the IOP from baseline at 1800 h. There was no difference between treatment groups regarding ocular and systemic unsolicited adverse events, but patients admitted to more dryness (P=0.02) and burning upon instillation (P<0.0001) with unoprostone by survey.Conclusion: Brimonidine 0.2% or unoprostone 0.15% added to timolol maleate 0.5% provide similar efficacy and safety throughout the daytime diurnal curve. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AIMS:To evaluate the efficacy and safety of latanoprost/timolol maleate fixed combination (LTFC) given once daily vs the concomitant therapy of brimonidine twice daily and latanoprost once daily in primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertensive subjects. METHODS:A prospective, double-masked, active-controlled comparison in which qualified subjects had all glaucoma medicines discontinued for 1 month and then were randomized to either LTFC or brimonidine and latanoprost concomitant therapy for 6 weeks. They were then switched to the other treatment regimen. The intraocular pressure (IOP) was measured at 0800, 1200, and 1600?h at baseline and at the end of Periods 1 and Period 2. RESULTS:In 32 subjects, the diurnal curve of the untreated IOP of 26.0±3.4 decreased to 17.8±2.5 on LTFC and 17.2±2.8?mmHg on brimonidine and latanoprost (P=0.31). At 0800 and 1600 h, the IOPs were statistically similar between the groups (P>0.05). At 1200?h the latanoprost and brimonidine treatment IOP was statistically lower (16.2±3.2) than LTFC (18.0±2.8?mmHg). However, the reduced IOP from untreated baseline was not statistically different at each time point and for the diurnal curve for each therapy (P<0.05). Safety was similar between groups for both solicited and unsolicited side effects (P>0.05). CONCLUSION:This study suggests that LTFC and concomitant therapy of brimonidine and latanoprost provide statistically similar diurnal IOP reduction from an untreated baseline.Eye (2004) 18, 990-995. doi:10.1038/sj.eye.6701375 Published online 19 March 2004 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To evaluate efficacy and safety in patients with ocular hypertension or open angle glaucoma changed to latanoprost/timolol fixed combination (LTFC). Methods: A prospective, multicentre, historical control in which qualified patients had their previous therapy substituted by LTFC and were followed for at least 2 months. Results: In 1676 patients LTFC was continued in 93% throughout the observation period. In all patients LTFC reduced the intraocular pressure (IOP) from 20.6 (SD 3.8) to 17.7 (3.0) mm Hg (p<0.001) compared to previous monotherapies including latanoprost, timolol, α agonists or carbonic anhydrase inhibitors (CAI). LTFC provided more efficacy after changing from adjunctive therapies including: a β blocker added to either CAI, α agonist, or pilocarpine, or CAI added to an α agonist, or latanoprost added to either CAI, α agonist, or β blocker (unfixed combination), and travoprost added to timolol (p<0.007). LTFC was as effective as latanoprost used with dorzolamide/timolol fixed combination (-0.9 mm Hg, p =0.1792). The most common reason to discontinue therapy was lack of efficacy (n = 70, 4%) and adverse event (n = 17, 1%). Conclusion: In a clinical selling, patients who have their monotherapy or adjunctive therapy substituted with LTFC may experience reduced IOP, good tolerability, and continuation of therapy for the first 2-3 months of treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose To compare ocular tolerability of dorzolamide 2%, brinzolamide 1%, and placebo given three times daily. Methods A prospective, double-masked, three-centre, crossover comparison in which 25 ocular hypertensive or primary-open angle glaucoma subjects were randomized to receive dorzolamide, brinzolamide, or placebo three times daily for 3 days. Intraocular pressure, visual acuity, a visual analogue scale, and ocular and systemic symptom queries were completed at the end of each period. Results After chronic dosing, there was a significant difference in ocular pain on the visual analogue scale among the groups at the 10-s postinstillation time point with dorzolamide having the highest level (22.5±28.9) compared to brinzolamide (5.0±8.7) or placebo (3.2±10.4) (P = 0.0006). No differences between groups were observed preinstillation nor following dosing at 3 or 10-min postinstillation. On the initial instillation, the 10-s postinstillation pain was rated as 43.3±77.1, which was significantly higher than after chronic dosing (P = 0.017). On the ocular symptom query, dorzolamide had the highest incidence of burning/stinging and redness compared to the other groups, but was generally characterized as mild. There were no significant differences in the visual acuity at any time point. Conclusions This study suggests that subjects treated with dorzolamide suffer more ocular pain upon instillation compared to brinzolamide or placebo. However, pain symptoms are fewer following chronic dosing and are generally characterized as mild. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims To compare the diurnal intraocular pressure (IOP) efficacy and safety of timolol vs latanoprost in subjects with exfoliation glaucoma (XFG). Methods A 3-month prospective, single- masked, active-controlled, parallel comparison performed in six centres in Greece that randomized subjects in a 1:1 ratio to either latanoprost in the evening (2000 hours) and placebo in the morning (0800 hours), or timolol twice daily (0800 and 2000 hours). Results In all, 103 subjects completed the study. After 3 months of chronic dosing, the latanoprost group exhibited a trend to a greater diurnal IOP reduction from an untreated baseline (24.9±3.2–17.4±2.9) compared with timolol (24.7±2.8–18.3±1.9 mmHg) (P=0.07). Latanoprost showed a significantly greater IOP reduction at 0800 hours (-8.5 vs -6.0 mm Hg for timolol, P<0.0001) whereas no difference was observed between the two medications at 1000, 1400, and 2000 hours after a Bonferroni Correction. In addition, latanoprost demonstrated a narrower range of diurnal IOP (2.4) than timolol (3.2 mmHg)(P=0.0017). Safety was similar between groups, except there was more conjunctival hyperaemia with latanoprost (n=8) than timolol (n = 1)(P=0.01). Conclusions This study suggests that latanoprost provides a statistically lower 08:00-hour IOP and better range of IOP than timolol in the treatment of XFG glaucoma. Eye (2004) 18, 893–899. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A response by W. C. Stewart and colleagues to a letter to the editor about their article "Untreated 24-h intraocular pressures measured with Goldmann applanation tonometry vs nighttime supine pressures with Perkins applanation tonometry" in the 2010 issue is presented.

Presents a response by W.C. Stewart to a letter to the editor commenting on the article "Diurnal Intraocular Pressure Reduction With Latanoprost 0.005% Compared to Timolol Maleate 0.5% as Monotherapy in Subjects with Exfoliation Glaucoma," published in the February 27, 2004 issue of the journal "Eye."