Bimatoprost/timolol fixed combination: A 3-month double-masked, randomized parallel comparison to its individual components in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension

James D Brandt, Louis B. Cantor, L. Jay Katz, Amy L. Batoosingh, Connie Chou, Izabella Bossowska

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

61 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)211-216
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Glaucoma
Volume17
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 2008

Fingerprint

Timolol
Ocular Hypertension
Glaucoma
Intraocular Pressure
Bimatoprost
Hyperemia
Multicenter Studies

Keywords

  • Bimatoprost
  • Fixed combination
  • Glaucoma
  • Intraocular pressure
  • Timolol

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ophthalmology

Cite this

Bimatoprost/timolol fixed combination : A 3-month double-masked, randomized parallel comparison to its individual components in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension. / Brandt, James D; Cantor, Louis B.; Katz, L. Jay; Batoosingh, Amy L.; Chou, Connie; Bossowska, Izabella.

In: Journal of Glaucoma, Vol. 17, No. 3, 04.2008, p. 211-216.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Brandt, James D ; Cantor, Louis B. ; Katz, L. Jay ; Batoosingh, Amy L. ; Chou, Connie ; Bossowska, Izabella. / Bimatoprost/timolol fixed combination : A 3-month double-masked, randomized parallel comparison to its individual components in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension. In: Journal of Glaucoma. 2008 ; Vol. 17, No. 3. pp. 211-216.
@article{d46f17f637ff42d1ac1a4a3ae9d9d595,
title = "Bimatoprost/timolol fixed combination: A 3-month double-masked, randomized parallel comparison to its individual components in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension",
abstract = "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.",
keywords = "Bimatoprost, Fixed combination, Glaucoma, Intraocular pressure, Timolol",
author = "Brandt, {James D} and Cantor, {Louis B.} and Katz, {L. Jay} and Batoosingh, {Amy L.} and Connie Chou and Izabella Bossowska",
year = "2008",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1097/IJG.0b013e3181507313",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "17",
pages = "211--216",
journal = "Journal of Glaucoma",
issn = "1057-0829",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Bimatoprost/timolol fixed combination

T2 - A 3-month double-masked, randomized parallel comparison to its individual components in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension

AU - Brandt, James D

AU - Cantor, Louis B.

AU - Katz, L. Jay

AU - Batoosingh, Amy L.

AU - Chou, Connie

AU - Bossowska, Izabella

PY - 2008/4

Y1 - 2008/4

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Bimatoprost

KW - Fixed combination

KW - Glaucoma

KW - Intraocular pressure

KW - Timolol

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=42149083759&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=42149083759&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/IJG.0b013e3181507313

DO - 10.1097/IJG.0b013e3181507313

M3 - Article

C2 - 18414107

AN - SCOPUS:42149083759

VL - 17

SP - 211

EP - 216

JO - Journal of Glaucoma

JF - Journal of Glaucoma

SN - 1057-0829

IS - 3

ER -