Paula Bernstein

A six-month randomized clinical trial comparing the intraocular pressure-lowering efficacy of bimatoprost and latanoprost in patients with ocular hypertension or glaucoma

Abstract Purpose To compare the intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering efficacy and safety of topical bimatoprost 0.03% with latanoprost 0.005%. Design Multicenter, randomized, investigator-masked clinical trial. Methods After washout of glaucoma medications, ocular hypertension or glaucoma patients were randomly assigned to once-daily bimatoprost 0.03% (n = 133) or latanoprost 0.005% (n = 136) for 6 months. The primary outcome measure was mean change from baseline IOP (8 am, 12 pm, 4 pm). Secondary measures included mean IOP, ophthalmologic examination, adverse events, and the percentage of patients reaching specific target IOPs. Results Mean change from baseline IOP was significantly greater for bimatoprost patients than for latanoprost patients at all measurements on each study visit; 1.5 mm Hg greater at 8 am ( P P P = .004) at month 6. At the end of the study, the percentage of patients achieving a ≥20% IOP decrease was 69% to 82% with bimatoprost and 50% to 62% with latanoprost ( P ≤ .003). In addition, the distribution of patients achieving target pressures in each range (≤13 to ≤ 15 mm Hg, >15 to ≤ 18 mm Hg, and > 18 mm Hg) showed that bimatoprost produced lower target pressures compared with latanoprost at all times measured ( P ≤ .026). Few patients were discontinued for adverse events (6 on bimatoprost; 5 on latanoprost). On ophthalmologic examination, conjunctival hyperemia ( P P = .064) were more common in bimatoprost patients. Conclusions Bimatoprost is more effective than latanoprost in lowering IOP. Both drugs were well tolerated, with few discontinuations for adverse events.

A 3-month randomized controlled trial of bimatoprost (LUMIGAN) versus combined timolol and dorzolamide (Cosopt) in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension

PURPOSE To compare the efficacy and safety of topical bimatoprost (LUMIGAN; Allergan, Inc., Irvine, CA) once daily with that of topical combined timolol and dorzolamide (Cosopt; Merck and Co, Inc., Whitehouse Station, NJ) twice daily. DESIGN Prospective, randomized, double-masked, multicenter clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS One hundred seventy-seven patients with a diagnosis of glaucoma or ocular hypertension and inadequate control of intraocular pressure (IOP) after at least 2 weeks of topical timolol maleate 0.5% monotherapy. METHODS Patients were randomized to receive bimatoprost 0.03% once daily (n = 90) or combined timolol 0.5% and dorzolamide 2% twice daily (n = 87) over a 3-month period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Intraocular pressure, the primary end point, was measured at 8 AM and 10 AM at baseline, week 1, and months 1, 2, and 3, and also at 4 PM and 8 PM at baseline and month 3. RESULTS Bimatoprost provided significantly greater IOP lowering compared with combined timolol and dorzolamide. At the 8 AM measurements, bimatoprost lowered mean IOP 6.8 mmHg to 7.6 mmHg from baseline, whereas combined timolol and dorzolamide lowered mean IOP 4.4 to 5.0 mmHg from baseline (P<0.001). At the last follow-up, patients had better diurnal IOP control with bimatoprost than combined timolol and dorzolamide. At 8 AM at the 3-month visit, the percentages of patients achieving IOPs of <or =13 mmHg, < or =14 mmHg, < or =15 mmHg, or < or =16 mmHg were more than twice as high for bimatoprost than for combined timolol and dorzolamide (all P< or =0.008). Taste perversion, ocular burning, and stinging with instillation were more common with combined timolol and dorzolamide, whereas conjunctival hyperemia was more common with bimatoprost. CONCLUSIONS In individuals with glaucoma or ocular hypertension, uncontrolled on a topical beta-blocker alone, bimatoprost lowered IOP more consistently than did combined timolol and dorzolamide.

A randomized, investigator- masked clinical trial comparing the efficacy and safety of gatifloxacin 0.3% administered BID versus QID for the treatment BID versus QID for the treatment of acute bacterial conjunctivitis of acute bacterial conjunctivitis.

ABSTRACT Purpose: To compare the efficacy and safety of gatifloxacin ophthalmic solution 0.3% (Zymar*) administered BID versus QID in patients with acute bacterial conjunctivitis. Methods: In a randomized, investigator-masked clinical trial, patients diagnosed with bacterial conjunctivitis (based on signs and symptoms) received gatifloxacin either BID or QID for 5 days. Visits were scheduled at day 0, day 3, and day 5. Conjunctival cultures were taken at each visit. The clinical cure rate at day 5 was determined for the entire patient population (primary endpoint). Additionally, clinical cure at day 5 was evaluated for a population of patients defined a priori (per protocol) as being culture positive at baseline and with no substantial protocol deviations. Safety was determined through recording of adverse events. Minimal inhibitory concentrations (MIC) and susceptibility of isolates to gatifloxacin were determined using a broth dilution method. * Zymar is a registered trade name of Allergan, Inc, Irvine, CA Results: Patient characteristics in both the BID and QID groups (N = 104) were similar in terms of baseline demographics and disposition. The clinical cure rate on day 5 in the entire, intent-to-treat (ITT) population was 86.5% (45/52) in the gatifloxacin BID group and 71.2% (37/52) in the gatifloxacin QID group (95% CI: [–0.03, 30.80]; p = 0.096). In both treatment groups, 5/52 patients (9.6%) reported adverse events. The most common adverse event was conjunctivitis. No serious adverse events were reported. In the a priori-defined per-protocol (PP) population, the clinical cure rate on day 5 was 95.5% (21/22) in the gatifloxacin BID group and 85.7% (18/21) in the gatifloxacin QID group (95% CI: [–7.57, 21.05]; p = 0.294). At baseline, 96.1% (98/102) of the isolates were susceptible to gatifloxacin. The overall MIC90 (mean ± standard error of the mean) was 0.5 ± 1.3 µg/mL. Conclusion: In this study, gatifloxacin 0.3% administered BID was as effective and as safe as gatifloxacin 0.3% administered QID for 5 days for the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis.

Control of intraocular pressure and fluctuation with fixed-combination brimonidine-timolol versus brimonidine or timolol monotherapy.

PURPOSE To evaluate control of intraocular pressure (IOP) and IOP fluctuation in patients with ocular hypertension or glaucoma treated with fixed-combination brimonidine-timolol compared with brimonidine or timolol monotherapy. DESIGN Post hoc analysis of data from 2 identical, 12-month, randomized, double-masked, multicenter trials. METHODS Patients were treated bilaterally with fixed brimonidine-timolol twice a day (n = 385), brimonidine tartrate 0.2% 3 times a day (n = 382), or timolol 0.5% twice a day (n = 392). Diurnal IOP was measured at follow-up visits at weeks 2 and 6 and months 3, 6, 9, and 12. IOP fluctuation was defined as the standard deviation of IOP measurements. RESULTS The percentage of patients with mean diurnal IOP <18 mm Hg and short-term (daily) IOP fluctuation ≤2 mm Hg was statistically significantly higher in the brimonidine-timolol group than in the brimonidine or timolol group at each follow-up visit (at month 12, brimonidine-timolol 43.0%; brimonidine 18.9%, timolol 33.5%, P ≤ .017). At each hour (8 AM, 10 AM, 3 PM, and 5 PM), the percentage of patients with mean IOP <18 mm Hg and long-term (intervisit) IOP fluctuation ≤2 mm Hg was statistically significantly higher with brimonidine-timolol than with brimonidine or timolol alone (at 8 AM, brimonidine-timolol 41.0%, brimonidine 11.3%, timolol 23.7%, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS Patients treated with fixed-combination brimonidine-timolol were more likely than patients treated with either brimonidine or timolol alone to achieve a combination of low mean IOP and low short-term (daily) or long-term (intervisit) IOP fluctuation.

A Comparison of Long-term Intraocular Pressure Fluctuation in Patients Treated With Bimatoprost or Latanoprost

PURPOSE To evaluate long-term intraocular pressure (IOP) fluctuation in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension treated with bimatoprost or latanoprost. DESIGN Post hoc analysis of prospectively collected data from a previously reported multicenter, investigator-masked, randomized clinical trial of bimatoprost and latanoprost. METHODS Patients were treated bilaterally with bimatoprost (n = 133) or latanoprost (n = 136) for six months. IOP measurements were taken at 8 am, 12 pm, and 4 pm at baseline, week 1, and months 1, 3, and 6. Long-term IOP fluctuation during treatment was determined as the standard deviation (SD) of all 12 follow-up measurements. RESULTS There was no significant between-group difference in short-term daily IOP fluctuation at baseline. Long-term IOP fluctuation over six months of treatment [mean SD (range SD)] was 1.9 (0.5 to 6.3) mm Hg with latanoprost vs 1.7 (0.5 to 3.9) mm Hg with bimatoprost (P = .050). Latanoprost-treated eyes were more likely than bimatoprost-treated eyes to have long-term IOP fluctuation of > or =3 mm Hg (7.8% vs 2.5% of eyes; P = .009). CONCLUSIONS Bimatoprost-treated eyes demonstrated less long-term fluctuation in IOP compared with latanoprost-treated eyes in this six-month study. Additional studies are needed to confirm these findings and to determine their impact on glaucomatous progression.

Efficacy of a preservative-free formulation of fixed-combination bimatoprost and timolol (Ganfort PF) in treatment-naïve patients vs previously treated patients

Purpose To evaluate, using subgroup analysis, the effect of treatment status on the intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering efficacy of a preservative-free formulation of fixed-combination bimatoprost 0.03%/timolol 0.5% (FCBT PF). Methods A primary, multicenter, randomized, double-masked, 12-week study compared the efficacy and safety of FCBT PF with preserved FCBT (Ganfort®) in 561 patients diagnosed with glaucoma or ocular hypertension. For this analysis, eligible patients were treatment-naïve or had inadequate IOP lowering and underwent a washout of previous treatment. IOP (8 am, 10 am, and 4 pm) was measured at baseline and weeks 2, 6, and 12. Subgroup analysis of the FCBT PF arm assessed changes in average eye IOP from baseline in treatment-naïve vs previously treated patients. To evaluate the effect of treatment status at baseline (treatment-naïve vs previously treated) on IOP reduction in the FCBT PF treatment group, an analysis of covariance model was used with treatment status and investigator as fixed effects, and baseline average eye IOP, age, glaucoma diagnosis, and baseline average eye corneal thickness as covariates. P-values and the 95% confidence intervals were determined using the model. Results In the FCBT PF arm, IOP mean changes from baseline ranged from −8.7 mmHg to −9.8 mmHg in treatment-naïve patients (N=50), compared with −7.3 mmHg to −8.5 mmHg in previously treated patients (N=228). Baseline IOP, age, glaucoma diagnosis, and corneal thickness significantly affected IOP reduction in the FCBT PF group. Adjusting for these covariates, FCBT PF had a greater IOP-lowering effect (0.8–1.7 mmHg) in treatment-naïve patients than previously treated patients, which was statistically significant (P≤0.05) at seven of nine time points. Conclusion In this subgroup analysis, FCBT PF reduced IOP more effectively in treatment-naïve than in previously treated patients possibly due, in part, to altered responsiveness or tachyphylaxis that has been associated with prior ocular hypotensive agent treatment.

A Masked, Randomized, Phase 3 Comparison of Triple Fixed-Combination Bimatoprost/Brimonidine/Timolol versus Fixed-Combination Brimonidine/Timolol for Lowering Intraocular Pressure

Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of triple fixed-combination bimatoprost 0.01%/brimonidine 0.15%/timolol 0.5% (TFC) versus dual fixed-combination brimonidine 0.2%/timolol 0.5% (DFC) in primary open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Methods Patients with intraocular pressure (IOP) ≥23 and ≤34 mmHg were randomized to twice-daily TFC or DFC. The primary variable is the change in worse eye mean IOP from baseline at week 12 (modified intent-to-treat (mITT) population). Secondary endpoints are mean IOP and mean change from baseline at weeks 1, 2, 4, 8, and 12 (mITT population). TFC superiority was demonstrated if the primary variable favored TFC (p ≤ 0.05). Sensitivity analyses were conducted, and safety was assessed at all visits. Results TFC (n = 93) provided greater IOP reductions from baseline than DFC (n = 97) at week 12 (treatment difference, 0.85 mmHg; p = 0.028) and all other visits. TFC was also superior to DFC in patients with high baseline IOP (i.e., IOP ≥ 25 mmHg; p ≤ 0.011). Conjunctival hyperemia, ocular irritation, and dry eye were reported more often with TFC (p ≤ 0.016); however, discontinuations for ocular adverse events were similar between treatments. Conclusions TFC demonstrated IOP-lowering benefits that outweigh the risk of predominantly mild ocular side effects, which may be particularly relevant in patients who require greater IOP lowering to prevent/delay disease progression. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov registry number: NCT01241240.