24-hour intraocular pressures with brimonidine purite versus dorzolamide added to latanoprost in primary open-angle glaucoma subjects.

University Department of Ophthalmology, AHEPA Hospital, Thessaloniki, Greece.
Ophthalmology (Impact Factor: 5.56). 05/2005; 112(4):603-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2004.11.032
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To evaluate the 24-hour efficacy of brimonidine purite versus dorzolamide, each added to latanoprost.
Double-masked, 2-center, prospective, crossover comparison.
Primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) subjects.
Subjects were randomized to brimonidine purite or dorzolamide, each given twice daily, for the first 6-week treatment period after a 6-week latanoprost run-in. Subjects began the opposite treatment for the second 6-week period after a 6-week latanoprost-only treatment between periods. Intraocular pressure (IOP) was measured at 8 am, 12 pm, 4 pm, 8 pm, 12 am, 4 am, and 8 am at each baseline and at the end of each treatment period. This study provided an 80% power that a 1.5-mmHg difference could be excluded between groups if 27 subjects completed the study. A standard deviation (SD) of 2.8 mmHg was assumed.
Twenty-four-hour efficacy of intraocular pressures of brimonidine purite versus dorzolamide, each added to latanoprost.
In 31 completed subjects, the baseline mean diurnal 24-hour IOP (+/- SD) was 19.0+/-1.7 mmHg for brimonidine purite and 19.0+/-1.6 mmHg for dorzolamide (P = 0.52). The 8 am IOP after 6 weeks of therapy was 18.4+/-2.1 mmHg for brimonidine purite and 18.9+/-1.9 mmHg for dorzolamide (P = 0.40). The mean diurnal IOP was 16.9+/-1.5 mmHg for brimonidine purite and 16.8+/-1.5 mmHg for dorzolamide (P = 0.66). Dorzolamide caused a more bitter taste (P = 0.01) than brimonidine purite.
This study suggests that brimonidine purite and dorzolamide, added to latanoprost, have similar efficacy and safety in POAG or ocular hypertensive subjects.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Glaucoma is a group of optic neuropathies characterized by retinal ganglion cell death, irreversible optic nerve damage, and vision loss. The treatment of glaucoma consists of reducing intraocular pressure (IOP) to a target level that is presumed to prevent further optic nerve deterioration. This presumption of clinical stability should be reevaluated at each clinical encounter with the patient and a new lower target IOP level estimated if progression has occurred.
  • Drugs & Aging 09/2006; 23(9). DOI:10.2165/00002512-200623090-00007 · 2.50 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Intraocular pressure (IOP) reduction is currently the only therapeutic approach demonstrated to preserve visual function in patients with glaucoma. The first line of glaucoma treatment consists of topical IOP-lowering medications, usually initiated as monotherapy. A significant proportion of patients require more than one medication to reach a target IOP at which optic nerve damage will not progress. As prostaglandin analogues (PGAs) are the most effective class for reducing IOP, one of the other commonly used classes (β-adrenoceptor antagonist [β-blocker], carbonic anhydrase inhibitor or α(2)-adrenoceptor agonist) is frequently combined with a PGA. In the last decade, the use of fixed combinations containing two medications in a single bottle has steadily increased. Fixed combinations have the potential to simplify the dosing regimen, increase patient adherence, avoid the washout effect of the second drop on the first medication instilled, decrease exposure to preservatives and, sometimes, reduce the cost of treatment. Clinical trials have evaluated PGA-based fixed combinations versus unfixed combinations (individual components administered concomitantly) or versus individual monotherapies; however, any advantage that the fixed combinations may have in terms of IOP-lowering efficacy is still debated. For these reasons, the PGA-based fixed combinations are not approved by regulatory authorities in some countries, such as the US. We review the published studies evaluating the efficacy and tolerability of the IOP-lowering unfixed and fixed combination therapies with PGAs. Regarding unfixed combinations, the review shows that α(2)-adrenergic agonists-PGA and carbonic anhydrase inhibitor-PGA combinations seem to be at least as effective at reducing IOP as the β-blocker-PGA combinations. As for the fixed combinations, the review shows that the three PGA-timolol fixed combinations are more effective than their component medications used separately as monotherapy and are better tolerated than the three respective prostaglandins. The three PGA-timolol fixed combinations are less effective at reducing IOP than the unfixed combinations but are better tolerated. The advantage of the fixed combinations in terms of patient adherence and persistence is supported by a very small number of studies and remains to be more accurately determined. Most studies, but not all, seem to show that PGA-timolol fixed combinations are more effective than other available β-blocker fixed combinations (dorzolamide-timolol fixed combinations) at reducing IOP and are similarly tolerated.
    Drugs 06/2012; 72(10):1355-71. DOI:10.2165/11634460-000000000-00000 · 4.13 Impact Factor


Available from
Sep 29, 2014