Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Two-year double-masked comparison of bimatoprost with timolol in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension.
Surv Ophthalmol 2004; 49 Suppl 1:S45-52SO

Abstract

The object of this study was to compare the long term efficacy and safety of bimatoprost with timolol in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension. In a 12-month extension of two identically designed 1-year, multicenter, randomized, double-masked clinical trials, patients were treated topically with bimatoprost 0.03% QD (n=167), bimatoprost 0.03% BID (n=131), or timolol 0.5% BID (n=81). Main outcome measures were IOP at 8 am and 10 am and safety parameters. Bimatoprost QD provided significantly greater mean reduction from baseline IOP than did timolol at both measurements at each study visit (P< or =.001). At 10 am (peak timolol effect) at month 24, the mean reduction from baseline IOP was 7.8 mm Hg with bimatoprost QD and 4.6 mm Hg with timolol (P<.001). Patients treated with bimatoprost QD also sustained significantly lower mean IOP than timolol-treated patients at every follow-up visit throughout the 2-year study period (P< or =.006). At 10 am at month 24, a significantly greater proportion of bimatoprost QD than timolol patients achieved target pressures of < or =13-18 mm Hg (P< or =.010). Bimatoprost sustained an excellent safety profile during the second year of treatment. Most adverse events were mild, and there were no reports of increased iris pigmentation, uveitis, or CME. The incidence of hyperemia was significantly higher with bimatoprost QD (13.8%) than with timolol (2.5%) (P=.006). Mean reduction from baseline IOP with bimatoprost BID was not significantly different from that with timolol at month 24 at 10 am (P=.474). We conclude that bimatoprost QD provides superior IOP lowering to timolol, and is safe and well tolerated over 24 months of treatment.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Cincinnati Eye Institute and University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio 45242, USA.

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

15016561

Citation

Cohen, John S., et al. "Two-year Double-masked Comparison of Bimatoprost With Timolol in Patients With Glaucoma or Ocular Hypertension." Survey of Ophthalmology, vol. 49 Suppl 1, 2004, pp. S45-52.
Cohen JS, Gross RL, Cheetham JK, et al. Two-year double-masked comparison of bimatoprost with timolol in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Surv Ophthalmol. 2004;49 Suppl 1:S45-52.
Cohen, J. S., Gross, R. L., Cheetham, J. K., VanDenburgh, A. M., Bernstein, P., & Whitcup, S. M. (2004). Two-year double-masked comparison of bimatoprost with timolol in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Survey of Ophthalmology, 49 Suppl 1, pp. S45-52.
Cohen JS, et al. Two-year Double-masked Comparison of Bimatoprost With Timolol in Patients With Glaucoma or Ocular Hypertension. Surv Ophthalmol. 2004;49 Suppl 1:S45-52. PubMed PMID: 15016561.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Two-year double-masked comparison of bimatoprost with timolol in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension. AU - Cohen,John S, AU - Gross,Ronald L, AU - Cheetham,Janet K, AU - VanDenburgh,Amanda M, AU - Bernstein,Paula, AU - Whitcup,Scott M, PY - 2004/3/16/pubmed PY - 2004/4/24/medline PY - 2004/3/16/entrez SP - S45 EP - 52 JF - Survey of ophthalmology JO - Surv Ophthalmol VL - 49 Suppl 1 N2 - The object of this study was to compare the long term efficacy and safety of bimatoprost with timolol in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension. In a 12-month extension of two identically designed 1-year, multicenter, randomized, double-masked clinical trials, patients were treated topically with bimatoprost 0.03% QD (n=167), bimatoprost 0.03% BID (n=131), or timolol 0.5% BID (n=81). Main outcome measures were IOP at 8 am and 10 am and safety parameters. Bimatoprost QD provided significantly greater mean reduction from baseline IOP than did timolol at both measurements at each study visit (P< or =.001). At 10 am (peak timolol effect) at month 24, the mean reduction from baseline IOP was 7.8 mm Hg with bimatoprost QD and 4.6 mm Hg with timolol (P<.001). Patients treated with bimatoprost QD also sustained significantly lower mean IOP than timolol-treated patients at every follow-up visit throughout the 2-year study period (P< or =.006). At 10 am at month 24, a significantly greater proportion of bimatoprost QD than timolol patients achieved target pressures of < or =13-18 mm Hg (P< or =.010). Bimatoprost sustained an excellent safety profile during the second year of treatment. Most adverse events were mild, and there were no reports of increased iris pigmentation, uveitis, or CME. The incidence of hyperemia was significantly higher with bimatoprost QD (13.8%) than with timolol (2.5%) (P=.006). Mean reduction from baseline IOP with bimatoprost BID was not significantly different from that with timolol at month 24 at 10 am (P=.474). We conclude that bimatoprost QD provides superior IOP lowering to timolol, and is safe and well tolerated over 24 months of treatment. SN - 0039-6257 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/15016561/Two_year_double_masked_comparison_of_bimatoprost_with_timolol_in_patients_with_glaucoma_or_ocular_hypertension_ L2 - https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0039625703001942 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -