May 2007
Volume 48, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2007
Bimatoprost/timolol Fixed Combination: A One-Year Double-Masked, Randomized Parallel Comparison to Its Individual Components in Patients With Glaucoma or Ocular Hypertension
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • L. Katz
    Glaucoma, University of Southern California, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
  • R. Lewis
    Capital City Surgery Center, Sacramento, California
  • A. Batoosingh
    Allergan, Inc, Irvine, California
  • C.-C. Liu
    Allergan, Inc, Irvine, California
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships L. Katz, None; R. Lewis, None; A. Batoosingh, Allergan, E; C. Liu, Allergan, E.
  • Footnotes
    Support Funded by unrestricted grants
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2007, Vol.48, 5561. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      L. Katz, R. Lewis, A. Batoosingh, C.-C. Liu; Bimatoprost/timolol Fixed Combination: A One-Year Double-Masked, Randomized Parallel Comparison to Its Individual Components in Patients With Glaucoma or Ocular Hypertension. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2007;48(13):5561.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose:: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of a fixed combination of bimatoprost and timolol (GAN) compared to each of the active components for one year.

Methods:: Two double-masked, randomized, multi-center parallel studies of GAN (q.d., mornings), bimatoprost (q.d., evenings, BIM), or timolol (b.i.d., TIM) were conducted in 1061 patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension.

Results:: Overall, 87.0% (923/1061) of patients completed the one-year treatment period, and discontinuation rates were similar in all three treatment groups: 12.2% (65/533) of GAN, 15.1% (40/265) of BIM, and 12.5% (33/263) of TIM patients. The proportion of patients with a mean diurnal percent change from baseline in IOP of more than 20% across all visits was 68.1% (363/533), 58.1% (154/265) and 38.0% (100/263) for the GAN, BIM and TIM groups, respectively (p < 0.003 for GAN vs. BIM and p < 0.001 GAN vs. TIM). The proportion of patients achieving a mean diurnal IOP of less than 18 mm Hg at all visits was met 43.5% (232/533), 35.8% (95/265), and 18.6% (49/263) for the GAN, BIM and TIM groups, respectively (p =0.021 for GAN vs. BIM, and p < 0.001 for GAN vs. TIM). The most commonly reported treatment-related adverse event was conjunctival hyperemia, with an incidence of 25.7% (137/533) in GAN, 43.4% (115/265) in BIM and 8.7% (23/263) in TIM (p < 0.001 for GAN vs. BIM and GAN vs. TIM).

Conclusions:: GAN was clinically and statistically significantly more effective than BIM or TIM, and better tolerated, and safer than BIM with respect to common ocular adverse events. GAN, a single-bottle, fixed combination represents a convenient, therapeutic advantage over separate bottles.

Clinical Trial:: www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT00332540 and NCT00332072

Keywords: clinical (human) or epidemiologic studies: treatment/prevention assessment/controlled clinical trials 
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×