May 2005
Volume 46, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2005
The Efficacy and Safety of Latanoprost 0.005% versus Timolol Maleate 0.5% Gel Forming Solution Each Given Once Every Evening in Primary Open–Angle Glaucoma or Ocular Hypertension
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • W.C. Stewart
    Pharmaceutical Research Network, Charleston, SC
  • P. Harasymowycz
    Maisonneuve–Rosemont Hospital, University of Montreal, Montreal, PQ, Canada
  • C.M. L. Hutnik
    Ivey Eye Institute, London, ON, Canada
  • M. Nicolela
    Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  W.C. Stewart, Pfizer R; P. Harasymowycz, Pfizer C; C.M.L. Hutnik, Pfizer C; M. Nicolela, Pfizer C.
  • Footnotes
    Support  None.
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2005, Vol.46, 2458. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      W.C. Stewart, P. Harasymowycz, C.M. L. Hutnik, M. Nicolela; The Efficacy and Safety of Latanoprost 0.005% versus Timolol Maleate 0.5% Gel Forming Solution Each Given Once Every Evening in Primary Open–Angle Glaucoma or Ocular Hypertension . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2005;46(13):2458.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Abstract: : Purpose: To compare the efficacy and safety of latanoprost and timolol gel forming solution (GFS). Methods: This was a randomized, crossover, investigator–masked, active–control study of primary open–angle glaucoma and ocular hypertensive patients. Patients received either once–daily 0.5% timolol GFS (n = 40) or once daily 0.005% latanoprost (n = 35) for 8 weeks (Period 1). Patients were then crossed over to the other medication and treated for another 8 weeks (Period 2). Intraocular pressure (IOP) was determined every 2 hours from 8:00 to 20:00 at baseline, and Weeks 8 and 16. Safety was assessed by visual acuity, slit lamp biomicroscopy, and adverse event reports. Results: During Period 1, the reduction in mean diurnal IOP in latanoprost–treated patients was significantly greater than in timolol GFS–treated patients (–6.9 ± 3.0 mm Hg and –5.5 ± 2.4 mm Hg respectively, P = 0.034). There was also a significant reduction from baseline in IOP after switching from timolol GFS to latanoprost (P < 0.001), not observed when patients were switched from latanoprost to timolol GFS. Latanoprost reduced IOP more than timolol GFS after combining each drug’s treatment periods between treatment arms (–6.9 ± 2.9 mm Hg and –6.2 ± 2.7 mm Hg respectively, P = 0.018). The most common adverse events in both treatment groups were hyperemia (44%), blepharitis (17%) and erythema (11%). Four patients withdrew early, two for potential drug related events, one on latanoprost had conjunctival erythema and one on timolol GFS had increased heart rate and blood pressure. Conclusions: Latanoprost is more effective than timolol GFS in reducing IOP and patients switched from timolol GFS to latanoprost have a further significant reduction in IOP.

Keywords: intraocular pressure • clinical (human) or epidemiologic studies: treatment/prevention assessment/controlled 
×
×

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.

×