Douglas G. Day

Factors Associated With Long-Term Progression or Stability in Primary Open-angle Glaucoma

PURPOSE To evaluate long-term risk factors for progression or stability in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma. METHOD We retrospectively included consecutively reviewed patients who had primary open-angle glaucoma for at least 5 years in this multicenter trial. Historical and clinical factors in these patients were evaluated for their association with stability or progression of the glaucoma. RESULTS We included 218 patients in this study; of these, 34 progressed over an average length of follow-up of 45.5 +/- 30.0 months, and 184 were stable over an average of 72.8 +/- 18.3 months. The mean intraocular pressure over the follow-up period for the progressed group was 19.5 +/- 3.8 mm Hg and for the stable group 17. 2 +/- 3.1 mm Hg (P =.001). The average standard deviation of individual intraocular pressures was greater in the progressed group (5.1 mm Hg) than the stable group (3.9 mm Hg, P =.012). Baseline characteristics indicating a greater potential to progress were a larger cup-to-disk ratio (P <.001), a greater number of medications (P =.02), older age (P.007), and worse visual acuity (P =.003). However, no difference was observed in pressure levels that prevented progression in these subpopulations compared with the total sample size. CONCLUSIONS This study suggests that lowering the intraocular pressure is important in the treatment of primary open-angle glaucoma to help prevent long-term progression. Lowering the pressure, however, is not uniformly effective in preventing progression. Additionally, risk factors for progression do not further help identify pressure levels that prevent worsening of glaucoma.

The efficacy and safety of latanoprost 0.005% once daily versus brimonidine 0.2% twice daily in open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension

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.

Brimonidine 0.2% versus dorzolamide 2% each given three times daily to reduce intraocular pressure

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.

Efficacy and safety of timolol solution once daily vs timolol gel added to latanoprost

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.

Brimonidine purite 0.15% versus dorzolamide 2% each given twice daily to reduce intraocular pressure in subjects with open angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension

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.

Bimatoprost 0.03% preservative-free ophthalmic solution versus bimatoprost 0.03% ophthalmic solution (Lumigan) for glaucoma or ocular hypertension: a 12-week, randomised, double-masked trial

Background/Aim To evaluate efficacy and safety of bimatoprost 0.03% preservative-free (PF) ophthalmic solution versus bimatoprost 0.03% (Lumigan) ophthalmic solution for glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Methods In this double-masked, parallel-group study, patients were randomised to bimatoprost PF or bimatoprost for 12 weeks. The primary analysis for non-inferiority was change from baseline in worse eye intraocular pressure (IOP) in the per-protocol population at week 12. For equivalence, it was average eye IOP in the intent-to-treat population at each time point at weeks 2, 6 and 12. Results 597 patients were randomised (bimatoprost PF, n=302 and bimatoprost, n=295). The 95% CI upper limit for worse eye IOP change from baseline was <1.5 mm Hg at each week 12 time point, meeting prespecified non-inferiority criteria. The 95% CI upper limit for the treatment difference for average IOP was 0.69 mm Hg and the lower limit was −0.50 mm Hg at all follow-up time points (hours 0, 2 and 8 at weeks 2, 6 and 12), meeting equivalence criteria. Both treatments showed decreases in mean average eye IOP at all follow-up time points (p<0.001), were safe and well tolerated. Conclusions Bimatoprost PF is non-inferior and equivalent to bimatoprost in its ability to reduce IOP-lowering with a safety profile similar to bimatoprost.

Timolol 0.5%/dorzolamide 2% fixed combination vs timolol maleate 0.5% and unoprostone 0.15% given twice daily to patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension ☆

OBJECTIVE To compare the efficacy and safety of timolol 0.5%/dorzolamide 2% fixed combination vs timolol maleate 0.5% and unoprostone 0.15% given twice daily. DESIGN Prospective multicenter, randomized, double-masked, crossover comparison study. METHODS Primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension patients were randomly assigned to one of the treatment groups for a 6-week treatment period and then crossed over to the opposite treatment. Diurnal curve testing was performed at 8:00 AM, 10:00 AM, 4:00 PM, 6:00 PM, and 8:00 PM at baseline and the end of each treatment period. The run-in medicine was timolol twice daily for 28 days. RESULTS Thirty-two patients completed this trial. The baseline trough pressure was 24.3 +/- 3.0 mm Hg, and the diurnal curve was 23.4 +/- 3.2 mm Hg. For the fixed combination the treatment trough pressure was 20.8 +/- 4.1 mm Hg and the diurnal curve was 19.6 +/- 3.6 mm Hg, whereas timolol and unoprostone concomitant therapy showed a treatment trough pressure of 20.1 +/- 4.5 mm Hg and a diurnal pressure of 19.8 +/- 4.1 mm Hg. There was no significant difference between treatment groups at any time point, for the diurnal curve, or in the extended reduction from baseline. There was no difference between treatment groups regarding ocular and systemic unsolicited or solicited adverse events. Burning, stinging, and conjunctival hyperemia were the adverse events most noted. There were no serious adverse events during this trial. CONCLUSIONS This study suggests that both timolol/dorzolamide 2% fixed combination and concomitant timolol maleate 0.5% and unoprostone 0.15% therapy provide similar efficacy and safety throughout the daytime diurnal curve.

Effect of timolol 0.5% gel and solution on pulmonary function in older glaucoma patients.

PurposeTo evaluate the effect of timolol maleate solution or gel forming solution versus placebo on pulmonary function in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension without reactive airway disease. MethodsAfter a screening visit, each patient was randomized by a Latin square technique to receive placebo twice daily, 0.5% timolol solution twice daily, or 0.5% timolol gel once a day (placebo given as second dose) to each eye for 2 weeks. Subjects then were crossed over to the two other treatments for 2-week treatment intervals. At each visit, patients were received a dose 15 minutes before pulmonary function testing. ResultsThis study began with 25 patients, and 20 finished the trial. There was no difference between treatment groups for the forced expiratory volume at one second (FEV1), forced vital capacity (FVC), FEV1/FVC ratio (P > 0.1). The mean FEV1 for timolol solution, timolol gel, and placebo was 2.42 L, 2.45 L, and 2.50 L, respectively. The mean FVC for timolol solution, timolol gel, and placebo was 3.33 L, 3.38 L, and 3.44 L, respectively. No difference in intraocular pressure was observed between the timolol solution (17.1 ± 3.3 mm Hg) and timolol gel (17.1 ± 3.6 mm Hg) between the treatment periods (P > 0.1). No difference in side effects was observed between treatment groups (P > 0.05). ConclusionsIn older patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension without reactive airway disease, nonselective &bgr;-blockers should not worsen pulmonary function.