Search

Jay S Pepose,1,2 Paul J Hartman,3 Harvey B DuBiner,4 Marc A Abrams,5 Robert J Smyth-Medina,6 Sayoko E Moroi,7 Alan R Meyer,8 Mina P Sooch,8 Reda M Jaber,8 Konstantinos Charizanis,8 Seth A Klapman,8 Arin T Amin,8 Jonah E Yousif,8 Eliot S Lazar,9 Paul M Karpecki,10 Charles B Slonim,11 Marguerite B McDonald12 1Pepose Vision Institute, St. Louis, MO, USA; 2Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA; 3Department of Ophthalmology, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA; 4Clayton Eye Center, Morrow, GA, USA; 5Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA; 6North Valley Eye Medical Group, Mission Hills, CA, USA; 7The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA; 8Ocuphire Pharma Inc, Farmington Hills, MI, USA; 9elCON Medical, Buffalo, NY, USA; 10Kentucky College of Optometry, University of Pikeville, Pikeville, KY, USA; 11Oculos Development Services, LLC, Tampa, FL, USA; 12Department of Ophthalmology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, USACorrespondence: Konstantinos CharizanisOcuphire Pharma, Inc., 37000 Grand River Ave, Farmington, MI 48335, USATel +1 (352) 328 9117Email kcharizanis@ocuphire.comPurpose: Phentolamine mesylate ophthalmic solution (PMOS), applied to the eye topically, was shown previously to have beneficial effects in patients with dim light vision disturbances (DLD), including decreased pupil diameter (PD), improved best-corrected distance visual acuity (BCDVA), as well as lower intraocular pressure (IOP). The ORION-1 trial evaluated the long-term safety and efficacy of PMOS in a glaucomatous, presbyopic population.Patients and Methods: In this randomized, double-masked, multi-center, placebo-controlled, multiple-dose Phase 2b trial, 39 patients with elevated IOP were randomized to receive one evening dose of study medication or placebo for 14 days. The primary outcome measure was mean change in diurnal IOP, and the key secondary outcome measures included changes in PD, distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA), and conjunctival hyperemia.Results: Use of 1% PMOS did not lead to a statistically significant decrease in diurnal IOP compared to placebo (P = 0.89) but trended toward a greater decrease in patients with lower IOP baselines. PMOS produced a statistically significant mean 20% PD reduction under both photopic and mesopic conditions that was sustained for 36 hours post-dosing. A statistically significant number of patients with PMOS compared to placebo demonstrated ≥ 1 line of improvement in photopic DCNVA at day 8 (P = 0.0018), day 15 (P = 0.0072), and day 16 (P = 0.0163), with a trend for 2- and 3-line improvements at all time points. There was no statistical difference in conjunctival hyperemia compared to placebo.Conclusion: Although mean IOP was not lowered significantly, daily evening dosing of 1% PMOS was found to be well tolerated with no daytime conjunctival redness and demonstrated improvement in DCNVA with sustained PD reduction in a glaucomatous and presbyopic population. Smaller pupil size can have beneficial effects in improving symptoms of presbyopia and DLD, which will be the focus of further studies.Keywords: IOP, presbyopia, night vision disturbances, dim light vision disturbances, pupil diameter, ORION-1

Edward Meier,1 Abhijit Narvekar,2 Ganesh R Iyer,2 Harvey B DuBiner,3 Apinya Vutikullird,4 David Wirta,5 Kenneth Sall61Apex Eye, Mason, OH, 2Alcon Research Ltd., Fort Worth, TX, 3Clayton Eye Center, Morrow, GA, 4WCCT Global, Cypress, 5Eye Research Foundation, Newport Beach, 6Sall Eye Research Medical Center, Artesia, CA, USAPurpose: To assess the pharmacokinetics and safety of hydrochloride ophthalmic solution 0.77% olopatadine from 2 independent (Phase I and Phase III, respectively) clinical studies in healthy subjects.Materials and methods: The Phase I, multicenter, randomized (2:1), vehicle-controlled study was conducted in subjects ≥18 years old (N=36) to assess the systemic pharmacokinetics of olopatadine 0.77% following single- and multiple-dose exposures. The Phase III, multicenter, randomized (2:1), vehicle-controlled study was conducted in subjects ≥2 years old (N=499) to evaluate long-term ocular safety of olopatadine 0.77%. Subjects received olopatadine 0.77% or vehicle once daily bilaterally for 7 days in the pharmacokinetic study and 6 weeks in the safety study.Results: In the pharmacokinetic study, olopatadine 0.77% was absorbed slowly and reached a peak plasma concentration (Cmax) of 1.65 ng/mL following single-dose and 1.45 ng/mL following multiple-dose exposures in 2 hours (time to reach maximum plasma concentration [Tmax]). After reaching peak concentrations, olopatadine showed a similar mono-exponential decay following single and multiple doses with mean elimination half-life ranging from 2.90 to 3.40 hours. No accumulation in olopatadine exposure (Cmax and area under the plasma concentration–time curve from 0 to 12 hours) was evident after multiple doses when compared to single dose. In the safety study, treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 26.7% and 31.4% of subjects with olopatadine 0.77% and vehicle, respectively. Blurred vision was the most frequent ocular treatment-emergent adverse event in both treatment groups (olopatadine 0.77% vs vehicle, 4.8% vs 4.1%). No deaths or serious adverse events were reported during the study.Conclusion: Olopatadine 0.77% had minimal systemic exposure or accumulation in healthy subjects and was well tolerated in both adult and pediatric subjects. Keywords: ocular allergy, allergic conjunctivitis, olopatadine, pharmacokinetics, safety

Harvey B Dubiner1, Robert Noecker21Clayton Eye Center, Morrow, GA; 2Ophthalmic Consultants of Connecticut, Fairfield, CT, USABackground: The purpose of this study was to characterize intraocular pressure (IOP) reduction throughout the day with travoprost ophthalmic solution 0.004% dosed once daily in the evening.Methods: The results of seven published, randomized clinical trials including at least one arm in which travoprost 0.004% was dosed once daily in the evening were integrated. Means (and standard deviations) of mean baseline and on-treatment IOP, as well as mean IOP reduction and mean percent IOP reduction at 0800, 1000, and 1600 hours at weeks 2 and 12 were calculated.Results: From a mean baseline IOP ranging from 25.0 to 27.2 mmHg, mean IOP on treatment ranged from 17.4 to 18.8 mmHg across all visits and time points. Mean IOP reductions from baseline ranged from 7.6 to 8.4 mmHg across visits and time points, representing a mean IOP reduction of 30%. Results of the safety analysis were consistent with the results from the individual studies for travoprost ophthalmic solution 0.004%, with ocular hyperemia being the most common side effect.Conclusion: Travoprost 0.004% dosed once daily in the evening provides sustained IOP reduction throughout the 24-hour dosing interval in subjects with ocular hypertension or open-angle glaucoma. No reduction of IOP-lowering efficacy was observed at the 1600-hour time point which approached the end of the dosing interval.Keywords: travoprost ophthalmic solution 0.004%, intraocular pressure reduction

BACKGROUND: Prostaglandin analogues are effective ocular hypotensive agents and are being used increasingly in the treatment of elevated intraocular pressure (IOP). These agents are typically dosed once daily. OBJECTIVES: A pilot study was conducted to evaluate the duration of travoprost's IOP-lowering efficacy up to 84 hours after the final dose in patients with open-angle glaucoma. A follow-up study was conducted to compare diurnal IOP control with travoprost and latanoprost over a 44-hour period. METHODS: In the open label pilot study, patients received 0.004% travoprost in both eyes at 8 pm daily for 2 weeks. After 2 weeks, IOP was measured before administration of the last daily dose, every 4 hours thereafter for 36 hours, and 60 and 84 hours after the last dose, with no additional ocular hypotensive medication given. In the controlled, double-masked, parallel-group, follow-up study, patients were randomized to self-administer 1 drop of the marketed doses of 0.004% travoprost or 0.005% latanoprost in both eyes at 8 pm daily for 2 weeks. At the end of this period, patients returned to the facility at approximately 8 pm for IOP measurement and administration of the final dose of study medication. IOP was then measured at 4-hour intervals for 44 hours after the last dose, with no additional ocular hypotensive medication given. RESULTS: The pilot study included 21 patients (67% female, 33% male; age range, 35-81 years) with open-angle glaucoma. IOP values were significantly below baseline at all time points up to 84 hours after the final dose of travoprost ( P<0.001). The follow-up study enrolled 35 patients, 1 of whom was excluded for missing data; thus, the intent-to-treat analysis included 34 patients (68% female, 32% male; age range, 36-72 years). At the unmedicated eligibility visit, mean IOP over 24 hours ranged from 21 to 26 mm Hg in each treatment group. After 2 weeks of treatment and 24 hours after the last dose, mean (SD) IOP was 13.1 (2.1) mm Hg (change from eligibility visit, -10.4 [2.7] mm Hg) in the travoprost group and 16.0 (3.1) mm Hg (change from eligibility visit, -7.1 [2.4] mm Hg) in the latanoprost group. The difference in change from baseline was statistically significant between treatment groups (P=0.006). Travoprost lowered IOP significantly at all time points throughout the 44-hour period after the last dose (mean IOP,

PurposeTo determine whether intraocular pressure (IOP) lowering with fixed-combination brinzolamide/brimonidine (BBFC) adjunctive to a prostaglandin analog (PGA) was superior to that of vehicle+PGA in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension who were inadequately controlled with PGA monotherapyMethodsThis 6-week, multicenter, randomized, double-masked, parallel-group trial was conducted at 30 clinical sites in the United States between October 2013 and May 2014. Eligible patients were adults with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension and with mean IOP ≥21 and <32 mm Hg, whereas receiving an open-label PGA (latanoprost, bimatoprost, or travoprost). Patients instilled a PGA once-daily in a run-in phase before randomization to masked BBFC or vehicle adjunctive treatment. Masked treatments were instilled 3 times daily for 6 weeks, and patients continued once-daily use of their PGA. The primary efficacy end point was the between-group difference in mean diurnal IOP (average of 0800, 1000, 1500, and 1700 hours time points) at week 6.ResultsAt week 6, mean diurnal IOP with BBFC+PGA was lower than with vehicle+PGA (17.1±0.4 mm Hg vs 20.5±0.4 mm Hg; between-group difference, -3.4±0.5 mm Hg; P<0.0001; 95% confidence interval, -4.5 to -2.4 mm Hg). BBFC+PGA reduced mean diurnal IOP by 5.7 mm Hg (25%) from the baseline IOP achieved with PGA monotherapy.ConclusionsTherapy with BBFC produced an additive IOP-lowering effect compared with a PGA alone or in conjunction with vehicle. BBFC may provide an effective treatment option for patients receiving PGA monotherapy who require additional IOP reduction., Competing Interests: RDF has received consultant fees from Alcon and Bausch & Lomb, and research support from Alcon and Allergan. JSM has received research funding from Alcon, Allergan, Glaukos, Inotek, and Merck; consultant fees from Aerie, Alcon, Allergan, Inotek, and Sucampo; and lecture fees from Alcon, Allergan, and Sucampo. DAH is an Alcon employee. DLB has received consultant fees from Alcon and Ivantis, and research support from the National Eye Institute, Glaucoma Research Foundation, Research to Prevent Blindness, and New World Medical, Inc. HBD has received speakers bureau fees from Alcon.

Objective: AR-13324 is a small-molecule inhibitor of Rho kinase and a norepinephrine transporter. The objective of this 28-day study was to evaluate the ocular hypotensive efficacy and safety of AR-13324 ophthalmic solution compared with a positive control, latanoprost ophthalmic solution, in patients with open-angle glaucoma (OAG) or ocular hypertension (OHT)., Design: Double-masked, randomized study in 22 private practice ophthalmology clinics., Participants: Participants were required to be adults with a diagnosis of OAG or OHT with unmedicated intraocular pressure (IOP) in the range of 22 to 36 mmHg., Methods: Patients were randomized to receive AR-13324 ophthalmic solution 0.01%, daily (pm), AR-13324 ophthalmic solution 0.02% daily (pm), or latanoprost 0.005% daily (pm) for 28 days., Main Outcome Measures: The primary efficacy endpoint was the mean diurnal IOP across subjects within the treatment group at day 28., Results: Randomized and treated were 224 patients, 213 (95.1%) of whom completed the study. On day 28, mean diurnal IOP was 20.1, 20.0, and 18.7 mmHg in the AR-13324 0.01%, 0.02%, and latanoprost groups, respectively, representing a decrease from unmedicated baseline of 5.5, 5.7, and 6.8 mmHg (P<0.001). The 5.7-mmHg reduction in IOP by AR-13324 0.02% did not meet the criterion for noninferiority to latanoprost. The most frequently reported adverse event was conjunctival/ocular hyperemia, with a combined incidence of 52%, 57%, and 16%, respectively. On day 28 at 08:00 hours, the incidence of mild to moderate hyperemia by biomicroscopy was 18%, 24%, and 11%, respectively., Conclusions: AR-13324 0.02% was less effective than latanoprost by approximately 1 mmHg in patients with unmedicated IOPs of 22 to 35 mmHg. The major safety finding was ocular hyperemia, which was more common for both concentrations of AR-13324 than for latanoprost., (Copyright © 2015 American Academy of Ophthalmology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Medications to control intraocular pressure (IOP) are frequently preserved using benzalkonium chloride (BAK), which can negatively affect the ocular surface. Data are needed to assess efficacy and safety of prostaglandin drugs preserved with and without BAK. The present study compared the efficacy and safety of BAK-free travoprost 0.004% (TRAV) and BAK 0.02%-preserved bimatoprost 0.01% (BIM) during late-day time points in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension., Methods: This was a 12-week, phase 4, randomized, investigator-masked, crossover study. 84 patients with IOP ≥24 and <36 mmHg were randomized 1:1 to receive once-daily TRAV or BIM for 6 weeks followed by an additional 6-week crossover period. IOP was measured at the end of each treatment period at 4, 6, and 8 pm. TRAV was considered noninferior to BIM if the upper limit of the 95% CI of the between-group difference in mean IOP was ≤1.5 mmHg. Adverse events were assessed throughout the study., Results: One patient discontinued due to allergic conjunctivitis, and 2 patients with missing data were excluded; 81 patients were included in the per-protocol population (mean ± SD age, 58.3 ± 11.4 years; TRAV/BIM, n = 41; BIM/TRAV, n = 40). After 6 weeks, mean IOP with TRAV (17.4 ± 2.7 mmHg; change from baseline, -6.0 mmHg) was similar to BIM (17.2 ± 2.6 mmHg; change from baseline, -6.3 mmHg); the between-group difference was 0.22 mmHg (95% CI, -0.22 to 0.67). Thus, noninferiority of TRAV versus BIM was demonstrated. Mean IOP at each time point and mean and percentage IOP change from baseline were not significantly different between treatments. All treatment-emergent adverse events were mild to moderate. The incidences of mild ocular hyperemia with TRAV and BIM were 31% and 39%, respectively; moderate hyperemia was observed in 2% of patients receiving BIM., Conclusion: Late-day IOP-lowering efficacy of BAK-free TRAV was noninferior to that of BAK 0.02%-preserved BIM; both reduced baseline IOP by 25%. Both treatments were well tolerated, although a higher incidence of moderate ocular hyperemia was observed with BIM., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01464424; registered November 1, 2011.

Purpose: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the LipiFlow System compared to the iHeat Warm Compress (WC) for adults with meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD)., Methods: This was a non-significant risk, prospective, open-label, randomized, crossover multicenter clinical trial. One hundred thirty-nine subjects were randomized between LipiFlow (n=69) and WC control (n=70). Subjects in the LipiFlow group received a 12-minute LipiFlow treatment and were reexamined at 1 day, 2 weeks and 4 weeks. Control subjects received a 5-minute iHeat treatment with instructions to perform the same treatment daily for 2 weeks. At 2 weeks, they crossed over (LipiFlow Crossover) and received the LipiFlow treatment. Effectiveness parameters: meibomian gland (MG) assessment, tear break-up time (TBUT) and dry eye symptoms. Safety parameters: adverse events, ocular health exam, ocular surface staining, intraocular pressure, visual acuity and discomfort., Results: LipiFlow resulted in significant improvement (P < 0.05) in MG secretion at 2 and 4 weeks (mean ± standard deviation at baseline = 6.3 ± 3.5; 2 weeks = 14.3 ± 8.7; 4 weeks = 16.7 ± 8.7); and TBUT at 2 and 4 weeks: (at baseline = 5.5 ± 2.9; 2 weeks = 6.9 ± 5.0; 4 weeks = 7.4 ± 5.5). There was no significant change in MG secretion or TBUT in the control group. LipiFlow resulted in a greater significant reduction in dry eye symptoms than the iHeat WC. The crossover group demonstrated similar significant improvement 2 weeks post-treatment with the LipiFlow. There was no significant difference between groups in the incidence of non-serious, device-related adverse events., Conclusion: The LipiFlow System was significantly more effective than iHeat WC. These results support its safety and effectiveness in the treatment of MGD and dry eye symptoms.

Purpose: To compare the duration of action of travoprost ophthalmic solution 0.004% (Travatan Z) formulated without benzalkonium chloride (BAK) to travoprost ophthalmic solution 0.004% formulated with BAK (Travatan)., Methods: This was a prospective, randomized, double-masked study. Patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension were randomized to receive 2 weeks of once-daily therapy with travoprost BAK-free or travoprost with BAK. Patients received the last dose of medication on day 13 and then intraocular pressure (IOP) was assessed every 12 hours for 60 hours. Statistical analysis included change in IOP from baseline for each group and comparison of mean IOP between groups., Results: Of the 109 patients enrolled, 106 patients completed the study. Untreated mean baseline IOP at 8 AM was 26.9 mm Hg in the travoprost BAK-free group and 27.1 mm Hg in the travoprost with BAK group. At 12, 24, 36, 48, and 60 hours after the last dose, mean IOP in the travoprost BAK-free group was 18.7, 17.2, 19.5, 18.7, and 20.8 mm Hg, respectively; whereas mean IOP in the travoprost with BAK group was 18.5, 16.8, 19.7, 18.0, and 20.8 mm Hg, respectively. Mean IOP at all time points after the last dose of medication was >6 mm Hg lower than the 8 AM baseline in both groups. Between-group differences were within +/-0.6 mm Hg at all postdose time points. There were no statistically significant differences between the 2 treatment groups at baseline or at any postdose time point. Drug-related side effects were uncommon, mild in intensity, and comparable between groups., Conclusions: Travoprost without BAK has similar IOP-lowering efficacy and safety compared with travoprost preserved with BAK. Both formulations of travoprost have a prolonged duration of action, with statistically and clinically significant reductions from baseline persisting up to 60 hours after the last dose.

Objective: To evaluate the intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering efficacy and safety of a fixed combination of 0.2% brimonidine tartrate and 0.5% timolol maleate (fixed brimonidine-timolol) compared with the component medications., Methods: In 2 identical, 12-month, randomized, double-masked multicenter trials, patients with ocular hypertension or glaucoma were treated with fixed brimonidine-timolol twice daily (n = 385), 0.2% brimonidine tartrate 3 times daily (n = 382), or 0.5% timolol maleate twice daily (n = 392)., Main Outcomes Measures: Mean change from baseline IOP and incidence of adverse events., Results: The mean decrease from baseline IOP during 12-month follow-up was 4.4 to 7.6 mm Hg with fixed brimonidine-timolol, 2.7 to 5.5 mm Hg with brimonidine, and 3.9 to 6.2 mm Hg with timolol. Mean IOP reductions were significantly greater with fixed brimonidine-timolol compared with timolol at all measurements (P< or =.002) and brimonidine at 8 am, 10 am, and 3 pm (P<.001) but not at 5 pm. The incidence of treatment-related adverse events in the fixed-combination group was lower than that in the brimonidine group (P = .006) but higher than that in the timolol group (P<.001). The rate of discontinuation for adverse events was 14.3% with the fixed combination, 30.6% with brimonidine, and 5.1% with timolol., Conclusions: Twice-daily fixed brimonidine-timolol therapy provides sustained IOP lowering superior to monotherapy with either thrice-daily brimonidine or twice-daily timolol and is better tolerated than brimonidine but less well tolerated than timolol., Application to Clinical Practice: Fixed brimonidine-timolol is an effective and convenient IOP-lowering therapy.

Purpose: To compare the efficacy and safety of once-daily (QD) bimatoprost, latanoprost, and timolol gel-forming solution in providing 24-hour intraocular pressure (IOP) control., Design: This was a randomized, multicenter, investigator-masked, prospective, parallel-group, clinical trial., Participants: Patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension., Intervention: After washout of any previous ocular hypotensive medications, patients were randomly assigned to treatment with bimatoprost 0.03% ophthalmic solution QD (n=38) or latanoprost 0.005% ophthalmic solution QD (n=38) between 7 and 9 pm, or timolol maleate 0.5% gel-forming ophthalmic solution QD (n=39) between 7 and 9 am for 1 month., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measure, circadian IOP, was measured at eight time points over the course of 24 hours beginning at 8 am on day 28 and with the last measurement at 8 am on day 29. IOP was also measured at 8 am and 10 am at baseline and at 8 am on day 14. Safety measures included adverse events, biomicroscopy, visual acuity, heart rate, and blood pressure., Results: At 10 am (peak drug effect) on day 28, the mean IOP reduction from baseline was significantly greater with bimatoprost (9.3 mm Hg, 40.3%) than with timolol gel (7.1 mm Hg, 31.1%; P=.024, Wilcoxon rank sum test) or latanoprost (7.4 mm Hg, 33.3%). In the overall analysis of IOP measured over the course of 24 hours, mean IOP was significantly lower with bimatoprost or latanoprost than with timolol gel (P<.001; analysis of repeated measures). The analysis of repeated measures also showed a significant difference between bimatoprost and latanoprost (P=.003). In the area-under-the-curve analysis, bimatoprost and latanoprost were superior to timolol gel (P< or =.018) but comparable to each other (P> or =.223). All treatment regimens were well tolerated, with few discontinuations due to adverse events. There were no significant effects on systemic safety parameters., Conclusion: Once-daily bimatoprost or latanoprost provided significantly better 24-hour IOP control than timolol gel in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Some measurements suggested a trend for greater efficacy of bimatoprost over latanoprost. All three treatments were well tolerated.

Background: Many physicians recommend either brimonidine or latanoprost as firstline therapy for chronic open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. However, a search of MEDLINE indicates that there have been few head-to-head comparisons of the 2 monotherapies in a clinical setting., Objective: This study compared the clinical efficacy and tolerability of brimonidine 0.2% twice daily with those of latanoprost 0.005% once daily as monotherapy in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension., Methods: In this 3-month, multicenter, double-masked, parallel-group, 4-visit study, treatment-naive and previously treated patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension and bilateral intraocular pressure (IOP) after washout of between 22 and 34 mm Hg were randomized to receive either brimonidine or latanoprost. Patients who had received previous treatment with either study drug were excluded from the study. The primary outcome measure was response rate, defined as the percentage of patients achieving > or = 20% reduction in IOP from baseline to month 3. Secondary outcome measures were mean IOP reduction from baseline to month 3 and clinical success, defined as the investigator's recommendation that the patient continue using the assigned study medication., Results: A total of 127 patients (55 treatment naive) were enrolled, 66 in the brimonidine group and 61 in the latanoprost group. After 3 months of treatment, 80% of patients in the brimonidine group and 74% of patients in the latanoprost group had achieved > or = 20% reduction in IOP from baseline. The mean reduction in IOP from baseline at month 3 was 6.8 mm Hg with brimonidine and 6.5 mm Hg with latanoprost (27.8% vs 27.0%, respectively). Among treatment-naive patients, a significantly higher percentage of brimonidine-treated patients achieved > or = 20% decrease in IOP compared with latanoprost-treated patients (88% vs 59%, respectively; P = 0.01). In previously treated patients, a higher percentage of the latanoprost group achieved > or = 20% reduction in IOP compared with the brimonidine group (88% vs 74%, respectively); however, the difference was not statistically significant. Significantly more patients in the brimonidine group achieved clinical success at month 3 compared with patients in the latanoprost group (91% vs 74%; P = 0.01)., Conclusions: At peak effect, brimonidine twice daily was as effective as latanoprost once daily in lowering IOP. In treatment-naive patients, latanoprost was associated with a significantly higher rate of nonresponse after 3 months of treatment compared with brimonidine. This suggests that brimonidine may be the more reliable choice for first-line therapy of newly diagnosed open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. In previously treated patients, however, latanoprost provided greater mean IOP reduction than did brimonidine. Significantly more patients achieved clinical success with brimonidine monotherapy than with latanoprost monotherapy.

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 determine the effect on serum lipid levels of carteolol hydrochloride 1.0% or timolol maleate 0.5% given twice a day to women age 60 years and older with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension., Method: We included 112 patients in this double-masked, randomized, multicenter trial. Fasting clinical laboratory studies were evaluated at baseline and at 12 weeks. Patients were instructed not to change their dietary, alcohol consumption, or exercise habits during the study., Results: For the carteolol group, the high-density lipoprotein (HDL) and total cholesterol/high-density lipoprotein (TC/HDL) ratio at baseline of 50.1 +/- 1.5 mg/dl and 4.7 +/- 0.2 changed by the 12-week visit to 51.3 +/- 1.9 mg/dl (P = .25) and 4.6 +/- .02 (P = .47), respectively. For the timolol maleate group, the baseline HDL and TC/HDL ratio of 53.6 +/- 2.2 mg/dl and 4.4 +/- 0.2 changed to 50.2 +/- 1.9 mg/dl (P < .001) and 4.7 +/- 0.2 (P = .001), respectively, at the 12-week visit. Carteolol patients showed no significant change from baseline, whereas the HDL (P < .001) and TC/HDL ratio decreased (P = .001) significantly in the timolol maleate group. There also was a significant difference in the change from baseline at 12 weeks between carteolol and timolol maleate groups for the HDL and TC/HDL ratio (P = .01 and .012, respectively). No differences in TC, low-density lipoprotein (LDL), or triglycerides (TG) or in changes from baseline were observed between groups at 12 weeks (P > .05). At 12 weeks, no differences were observed between carteolol and timolol maleate groups in intraocular pressure or safety (P > .05), except that patients given carteolol demonstrated fewer solicited ocular symptoms (P = .007)., Conclusions: Carteolol appears to be neutral in its effect on serum lipid levels, whereas timolol maleate adversely affects the HDL and TC/HDL ratio in women age 60 years and older with ocular hypertension or primary open-angle glaucoma.

Background and Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of diclofenac 0.1% versus prednisolone acetate 1% following trabeculectomy with adjunctive mitomycin-C., Patients and Methods: The authors prospectively randomized chronic open-angle glaucoma patients who underwent trabeculectomy with adjunctive mitomycin-C to receive postoperatively either diclofenac 0.1% or prednisolone acetate 1% 4 times daily, to be tapered as inflammation resolved., Results: In the diclofenac group (n = 14), the preoperative intraocular pressure of 30.4 +/- 13.1 decreased to 12.4 +/- 6.5 mm Hg at 6 months postoperatively. In the prednisolone acetate group (n = 12), the preoperative intraocular pressure decreased from 29.1 +/- 10.4 to 12.8 +/- 4.2 mm Hg at 6 months postoperatively (P = .85). The average number of medicines used 6 months postoperatively was 0.50 +/- 0.8 in the diclofenac group and 0.24 +/- 0.6 in the prednisolone acetate group (P = .36). Adverse events were similar between groups (P = .51). One patient in the diclofenac group underwent reoperation at 1 month due to uncontrolled intraocular pressure., Conclusions: This study shows that following trabeculectomy with adjunctive mitomycin-C, a similar intraocular pressure result may be expected when either diclofenac or prednisolone acetate is prescribed postoperatively for intraocular inflammation.

Purpose: We compared the therapeutic efficacy and safety of timolol hemihydrate to timolol maleate in patients with ocular hypertension and chronic open-angle glaucoma., Methods: We conducted this three-month study as a multicentered, masked, parallel group comparison. Both the 0.25% and 0.5% concentrations were evaluated against similar concentrations of timolol maleate. Dosing was twice daily. An open-label, nine-month study followed the masked portion of the protocol, in which all patients received either 0.25% or 0.5% timolol hemihydrate. A total of 371 patients were included in both the 0.25% and 0.5% studies., Results: We found statistically similar intraocular pressures with both the 0.25% (18.3 and 18.6 mm Hg for the hemihydrate and maleate groups, respectively) and 0.5% (19.9 and 19.5 mm Hg for the hemihydrate and maleate groups, respectively) concentrations of timolol hemihydrate and timolol maleate after three months of masked treatment. Likewise, peak intraocular effect at two hours after taking the medication was statistically similar between medicines at both concentrations. Likewise, both ocular and systemic safety were similar between the maleate and hemihydrate preparations at both concentrations. In the nine-month open-label protocol, therapeutic efficacy (19.9 and 19.1 mm Hg for the 0.25% and 0.5% concentrations, respectively) and safety of timolol hemihydrate were similar to effect and safety of the three-month protocol., Conclusions: This study suggests that timolol hemihydrate had an ocular hypotensive efficacy and safety profile statistically equivalent to that of timolol maleate for up to three months of therapy. Timolol hemihydrate showed efficacy and safety similar to that observed within the first three months, for up to one year of therapy.