Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

One-year, randomized study comparing bimatoprost and timolol in glaucoma and ocular hypertension.
Arch Ophthalmol 2002; 120(10):1286-93AO

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare bimatoprost with timolol maleate in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension.

METHODS

In 2 identical, multicenter, randomized, double-masked, 1-year clinical trials, patients were treated with 0.03% bimatoprost once daily (QD) (n = 474), 0.03% bimatoprost twice daily (BID) (n = 483), or 0.5% timolol maleate BID (n = 241).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Diurnal intraocular pressure (IOP) at 8 AM, 10 AM, and 4 PM and safety variables (IOP was also measured at 8 PM at selected sites).

RESULTS

Bimatoprost QD provided significantly lower mean IOP than timolol at every time of the day at each study visit (P<.001). This was also true for bimatoprost BID at most time points, but the efficacy was not as good as that of the QD regimen. At 10 AM (peak timolol effect) at month 12, the mean reduction in IOP from baseline was 7.6 mm Hg (30%) with bimatoprost and 5.3 mm Hg (21%) with timolol (P<.001). A significantly higher percentage of patients receiving bimatoprost QD (58%) than timolol (37%) achieved IOPs at or below 17 mm Hg (10 AM, month 12; P<.001). The most common adverse effect with bimatoprost was hyperemia (significantly higher with bimatoprost QD than timolol; P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Bimatoprost QD provides sustained IOP lowering superior to timolol or bimatoprost BID and achieves low target IOPs in significantly more patients.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Ophthalmology, University of Maryland at Baltimore, 419 W Redwood St, Suite 580, Baltimore, MD 21201-1595, USA. fcwejh6786@aol.comNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Clinical Trial
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Language

eng

PubMed ID

12365906

Citation

Higginbotham, Eve J., et al. "One-year, Randomized Study Comparing Bimatoprost and Timolol in Glaucoma and Ocular Hypertension." Archives of Ophthalmology (Chicago, Ill. : 1960), vol. 120, no. 10, 2002, pp. 1286-93.
Higginbotham EJ, Schuman JS, Goldberg I, et al. One-year, randomized study comparing bimatoprost and timolol in glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Arch Ophthalmol. 2002;120(10):1286-93.
Higginbotham, E. J., Schuman, J. S., Goldberg, I., Gross, R. L., VanDenburgh, A. M., Chen, K., & Whitcup, S. M. (2002). One-year, randomized study comparing bimatoprost and timolol in glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Archives of Ophthalmology (Chicago, Ill. : 1960), 120(10), pp. 1286-93.
Higginbotham EJ, et al. One-year, Randomized Study Comparing Bimatoprost and Timolol in Glaucoma and Ocular Hypertension. Arch Ophthalmol. 2002;120(10):1286-93. PubMed PMID: 12365906.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - One-year, randomized study comparing bimatoprost and timolol in glaucoma and ocular hypertension. AU - Higginbotham,Eve J, AU - Schuman,Joel S, AU - Goldberg,Ivan, AU - Gross,Ronald L, AU - VanDenburgh,Amanda M, AU - Chen,Kuankuan, AU - Whitcup,Scott M, AU - ,, PY - 2002/10/9/pubmed PY - 2002/10/31/medline PY - 2002/10/9/entrez SP - 1286 EP - 93 JF - Archives of ophthalmology (Chicago, Ill. : 1960) JO - Arch. Ophthalmol. VL - 120 IS - 10 N2 - OBJECTIVE: To compare bimatoprost with timolol maleate in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension. METHODS: In 2 identical, multicenter, randomized, double-masked, 1-year clinical trials, patients were treated with 0.03% bimatoprost once daily (QD) (n = 474), 0.03% bimatoprost twice daily (BID) (n = 483), or 0.5% timolol maleate BID (n = 241). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Diurnal intraocular pressure (IOP) at 8 AM, 10 AM, and 4 PM and safety variables (IOP was also measured at 8 PM at selected sites). RESULTS: Bimatoprost QD provided significantly lower mean IOP than timolol at every time of the day at each study visit (P<.001). This was also true for bimatoprost BID at most time points, but the efficacy was not as good as that of the QD regimen. At 10 AM (peak timolol effect) at month 12, the mean reduction in IOP from baseline was 7.6 mm Hg (30%) with bimatoprost and 5.3 mm Hg (21%) with timolol (P<.001). A significantly higher percentage of patients receiving bimatoprost QD (58%) than timolol (37%) achieved IOPs at or below 17 mm Hg (10 AM, month 12; P<.001). The most common adverse effect with bimatoprost was hyperemia (significantly higher with bimatoprost QD than timolol; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Bimatoprost QD provides sustained IOP lowering superior to timolol or bimatoprost BID and achieves low target IOPs in significantly more patients. SN - 0003-9950 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/12365906/One_year_randomized_study_comparing_bimatoprost_and_timolol_in_glaucoma_and_ocular_hypertension_ L2 - https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaophthalmology/fullarticle/vol/120/pg/1286 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -