We compared the intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering effect of tafluprost 0.0015% once daily with travoprost 0.004% once daily in Japanese patients with normal-tension glaucoma (NTG).
One hundred sixteen patients with NTG were randomized to use tafluprost 0.0015% or travoprost 0.004% once daily for 12 weeks, followed by a washout period of 4 weeks between switching medications. IOP was measured at baseline and 4, 8, and 12 weeks of each treatment period.
Ninety patients completed both treatment periods and had IOP data available for evaluation. In both groups, a significant decrease in IOP was observed for all measurement points compared with baseline values (P < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in IOP at each time point between the two groups. Both drugs were effective (defined as more than 10% IOP reduction) in 39 (43%) of 90 patients; only tafluprost was effective in 26 (29%) patients, and only travoprost was effective in 17 (19%) patients. Eight (9%) patients were nonresponders to both drugs.
Tafluprost and travoprost were equally effective in lowering IOP in patients with normal-tension glaucoma. However, patients with normal-tension glaucoma may vary in response to each medication.
To compare the diurnal intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering efficacy and safety of travoprost 0.004% and tafluprost 0.0015% administered to patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension.
This was a randomized, double-masked, active-controlled, crossover design trial, in which patients were randomized to either travoprost or tafluprost monotherapy administered once daily in the evening for six weeks and then crossed over to the alternative treatment for another six weeks. Diurnal IOP was measured (8 am to 8 pm, every two hours) and a solicited symptom survey was administered at the end of both six-week periods, as was conjunctival hyperemia and visual acuity assessment, slit-lamp biomicroscopy, and adverse event solicitation.
Fifty-one patients were randomized and 48 patients completed the study. The 12-hour mean diurnal IOP was significantly lower with travoprost therapy than with tafluprost therapy (P = 0.01), and a significantly lower IOP was also reported for travoprost at five of the seven individual time points (P < 0.05). Neither therapy produced a significant increase from baseline in any of the individual patient-reported symptom scores, except for hyperemia (P ≤ 0.01), which was increased with both treatments. Investigator-observed hyperemia was also increased from baseline with both therapies (P < 0.01), although the increase with travoprost therapy was significantly smaller than with tafluprost (P < 0.01). No additional safety concerns were noted from slit-lamp biomicroscopy or visual acuity results, and no difference was noted in patient-reported tolerability of the two medications.
Travoprost 0.004% monotherapy produced lower diurnal IOP than tafluprost 0.0015% in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension and exhibited a similar safety profile.
The purpose of this study was to characterize intraocular pressure (IOP) reduction throughout the day with travoprost ophthalmic solution 0.004% dosed once daily in the evening.
The results of seven published, randomized clinical trials including at least one arm in which travoprost 0.004% was dosed once daily in the evening were integrated. Means (and standard deviations) of mean baseline and on-treatment IOP, as well as mean IOP reduction and mean percent IOP reduction at 0800, 1000, and 1600 hours at weeks 2 and 12 were calculated.
From a mean baseline IOP ranging from 25.0 to 27.2 mmHg, mean IOP on treatment ranged from 17.4 to 18.8 mmHg across all visits and time points. Mean IOP reductions from baseline ranged from 7.6 to 8.4 mmHg across visits and time points, representing a mean IOP reduction of 30%. Results of the safety analysis were consistent with the results from the individual studies for travoprost ophthalmic solution 0.004%, with ocular hyperemia being the most common side effect.
Travoprost 0.004% dosed once daily in the evening provides sustained IOP reduction throughout the 24-hour dosing interval in subjects with ocular hypertension or open-angle glaucoma. No reduction of IOP-lowering efficacy was observed at the 1600-hour time point which approached the end of the dosing interval.
To compare the intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering efficacy of travoprost 0.004%/timolol 0.5% in fixed combination with the unfixed combination of latanoprost 0.005% and timolol 0.5% in open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension patients with IOP levels below 18 mmHg on the unfixed combination of latanoprost 0.005% and timolol 0.5%.
Following a 30-day open-label run-in with latanoprost QD PM and timolol QD AM, subjects with intraocular pressure below 18 mmHg were randomized to continue concomitant latanoprost QD PM and timolol QD AM or switch to travoprost 0.004%/timolol 0.5% QD AM and vehicle QD PM in masked fashion and were followed for 3 months. The primary efficacy endpoint was mean IOP reduction from baseline.
There were no clinically relevant or statistically significant differences in mean IOP, mean IOP change from baseline, or percentage IOP change from baseline between the two treatment groups. Between-group differences in mean IOP were within +/-0.3 mmHg at all time points (p >/= 0.384), and between-group differences in mean IOP change from baseline were within +/-0.4 mmHg at all time points. Overall, 88% of patients whose IOP was less than 18 mmHg on the unfixed combination of latanoprost and timolol remained well controlled on the same regimen in the masked portion of the study, compared with 92% who remained well controlled after switching to travoprost/timolol.
Travoprost 0.004%/timolol 0.5% administered once daily and concomitant administration of timolol 0.5% and latanoprost 0.005% produce similar maintenance of IOP-lowering effect in patients who were previously well controlled on concomitant administration of latanoprost and timolol. Patients who are well controlled on latanoprost and timolol concomitant therapy can be switched to once-daily therapy with travoprost 0.004%/timolol 0.5% with no expected compromise in the safety and efficacy of their treatment.
To determine the short-term comfort after a single dose of travoprost BAK-free compared to latanoprost in primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertensive patients.
Prospective, double-masked, randomized comparison of two separate active agents dosed once in opposite eyes.
At Visit 1, qualified patients began a glaucoma medicine-free period for three days. At Visit 2, patients were randomly assigned to travoprost BAK-free or latanoprost in opposite eyes. Following dosing in each eye, patients completed a visual analog scale (VAS score, 0-100 mm) at specified time intervals and a comfort survey.
In 54 completed subjects, no difference existed five seconds after dosing, in comfort on the VAS between latanoprost (7.1 +/- 16.2 mm) and travoprost BAK-free (7.8 +/- 16.1 mm, P = 0.53). Also no differences existed between treatments following dosing for discomfort at individual timepoints past five seconds, peak discomfort or the time required to return to baseline comfort (P > 0.05). In addition, the comfort survey demonstrated no difference between products for burning, stinging, foreign body sensation, overall comfort and general acceptance between the products, both for absolute levels and changes from baseline (P > 0.05).
Following a single instillation, both latanoprost and travoprost BAK-free exhibit similar comfort scores.
Travoprost 0.004%/timolol maleate 0.5% fixed combination eye drops are available in Japan. We prospectively investigated the intraocular pressure (IOP)-decreasing effect of travoprost 0.004%/timolol maleate 0.5% fixed combination eye drops and the adherence of patients to the administration protocol.
We studied 43 eyes from 43 patients diagnosed with primary open- angle glaucoma, who were using prostaglandin analogs and β-blockers. The prostaglandin analogs and β-blockers were discontinued, and the treatment regimen was changed to travoprost 0.004%/timolol maleate 0.5% fixed combination eye drops without any washout period. IOP before and at 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months after the treatment change was evaluated and compared. A questionnaire about protocol adherence was administered 1 month after the treatment change.
IOP was 15.7 ± 2.9 mmHg before the change, 15.5 ± 2.7 mmHg at 1 month after the change, 15.3 ± 3.6 mmHg at 3 months after the change, and 15.8 ± 3.2 mmHg at 6 months after the change, and none of the differences were significant (P = 0.191). The responses to the questionnaire showed that cases where eye drop administration was forgotten decreased after the treatment change. Moreover, because of changes in eye drops, 19.0% of patients had irritation. More than half (54.8%) of the patients preferred travoprost 0.004%/timolol maleate 0.5% fixed combination eye drops. Seven patients (16.3%) discontinued eye drop use because of adverse reactions within 6 months after the change.
When the treatment regimen was changed from prostaglandin analogs and β-blockers to travoprost 0.004%/timolol maleate 0.5% fixed combination eye drops, administration protocol adherence increased and IOP was preserved; however, adverse reactions appeared in about 16% of the cases.
To assess the safety and efficacy of transitioning patients whose intraocular pressure (IOP) had been insufficiently controlled on prostaglandin analog (PGA) monotherapy to treatment with travoprost 0.004%/timolol 0.5% fixed combination with benzalkonium chloride (TTFC).
This prospective, multicenter, open-label, historical controlled, single-arm study transitioned patients who had primary open-angle glaucoma, pigment dispersion glaucoma, or ocular hypertension and who required further IOP reduction from PGA monotherapy to once-daily treatment with TTFC for 12 weeks. IOP and safety (adverse events, corrected distance visual acuity, and slit-lamp biomicroscopy) were assessed at baseline, week 4, and week 12. A solicited ocular symptom survey was administered at baseline and at week 12. Patients and investigators reported their medication preference at week 12.
Of 65 patients enrolled, 43 had received prior travoprost therapy and 22 had received prior nontravoprost therapy (n = 18, bimatoprost; n = 4, latanoprost). In the total population, mean IOP was significantly reduced from baseline (P = 0.000009), showing a 16.8% reduction after 12 weeks of TTFC therapy. In the study subgroups, mean IOP was significantly reduced from baseline to week 12 (P = 0.0001) in the prior travoprost cohort (19.0% reduction) and in the prior nontravoprost cohort (13.1% reduction). Seven mild, ocular, treatment-related adverse events were reported. Of the ten ocular symptom questions, eight had numerically lower percentages with TTFC compared with prior PGA monotherapy and two had numerically higher percentages with TTFC (dry eye symptoms and ocular stinging/burning). At week 12, TTFC was preferred over prior therapy for 84.2% of patients (48 of 57) by the patients themselves, and for 94.7% of patients (54 of 57) by their physicians.
When TTFC replaced PGA monotherapy in patients whose IOP had been uncontrolled, the outcome was a significant reduction in IOP and an acceptable safety and tolerability profile. Most patients and investigators preferred TTFC to prior PGA monotherapy.
To examine the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of travoprost 0.004% benzalkonium chloride (BAK)-free compared with previous use of latanoprost 0.005% in Japanese patients living in the US who had primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension.
This was an open-label, multicenter, bilateral, intraindividual, and active-controlled study in which 20 Japanese American patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension who had been on latanoprost 0.005% monotherapy were changed to monotherapy with travoprost 0.004% BAK-free daily for 12 weeks. Patients were administered the same series of tests to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of latanoprost at the baseline visit and of travoprost BAK-free at the week 12 visit.
No significant difference in mean intraocular pressure (IOP) was observed between latanoprost monotherapy at baseline and travoprost BAK-free monotherapy after 12 weeks (P = 0.76), nor were significant differences noted in mean ocular hyperemia, visual acuity, corneal fluorescein staining, or overall scores from the Ocular Surface Disease Index. Patients had a significantly shorter mean tear breakup time while on latanoprost compared with travoprost BAK-free (P = 0.0094). Significantly more patients preferred travoprost BAK-free monotherapy over latanoprost monotherapy (14 versus 6; P = 0.011).
The results of this study suggest that Japanese American patients transitioned from latanoprost 0.005% monotherapy to travoprost 0.004% BAK-free can expect similar IOP control and some improvement in anterior segment signs. This transition study showed a strong patient preference for travoprost BAK-free over latanoprost, at a ratio of more than 2:1.
Benzalkonium chloride (BAK)-free travoprost 0.004% (Travatan Z(®), Alcon Laboratories, Inc, Fort Worth, TX) is a new formulation that was developed with the aim of creating a formulation of travoprost that would maintain the intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering efficacy and have an improved overall safety profile, particularly improved ocular surface tolerability.
Thirty newly diagnosed primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) patients were treated with BAK-free travoprost 0.004%. IOP readings were recorded at baseline before initiating treatment, at 4-6 weeks, and after 12 weeks of starting treatment. In addition, patient demographics, subjective symptoms (ie, burning, foreign-body sensation, itching, and stinging), and objective clinical signs such as conjunctival hyperemia were collected. Subjective symptoms were evaluated using a four-point scale ranging from "no symptoms," "mild symptoms," "moderate symptoms" to "severe symptoms." As for clinical signs, severity of conjunctival hyperemia was evaluated. All other adverse events were collected.
BAK-free travoprost 0.004% provided an IOP decrease in all patients, with an overall mean of 28.3 ± 2.1 mmHg at baseline to a mean of 18.7 ± 1.6 mmHg at 4-6 weeks, and a mean of 18.4 ± 1.4 mmHg after 12 weeks. Both subjective symptoms and objective clinical signs were very few after treatment.
The results demonstrate that BAK-free travoprost 0.004% is an effective, well tolerated, and safe medication in POAG patients.
To compare the IOP-lowering efficacy of the fixed combination of travoprost 0.004%/timolol 0.5% dosed once daily in the morning with the concomitant administration of travoprost 0.004% dosed once daily in the evening and timolol 0.5% dosed once daily in the morning.
This was an analysis of pooled data from two similarly designed prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trials comparing the fixed combination and concomitant therapy.
Mean IOP ranged from 15.7 to 16.8 mmHg for the fixed combination group, and from 15.1 to 16.4 mmHg for the concomitant group. Mean IOP reductions were up to 9.0 mmHg in the fixed combination group, and up to 8.8 mmHg in the concomitant group. The differences in mean IOP change between treatment groups ranged from -0.2 to +0.9 mmHg across visits and time points. The safety profile was generally similar between groups. An exception was the incidence of ocular hyperemia, which was 13.7% with the fixed combination and 20.8% with concomitant therapy (p = 0.02).
The fixed combination of travoprost 0.004% and timolol 0.5% provides IOP-lowering efficacy that is similar to concomitant administration of travoprost 0.004% dosed once daily in the evening and timolol 0.5% dosed once daily in the morning.
To compare the safety and effectiveness of fixed-combination regimes (latanoprost- timolol and brinzolamide 1% compared to dorzolamide 1%/timolol and latanoprost) in open-angle glaucoma patients after switching from a combination of three topical antiglaucoma eye drops.
We conducted an open, randomized 12-week multicenter prospective study. We randomly allocated 39 patients who had been treated with three antiglaucoma eye drops (prostaglandin F(2α) analogues plus beta-blockers and carbonic anhydrase inhibitors) into two groups. Group A (n = 20) were treated with latanoprost-timolol and brinzolamide 1% therapy and Group B (n = 16) were treated with dorzolamide 1%/timolol and latanoprost. Thirty-six patients completed all 12 weeks of this study. The major clinical parameters measured were intraocular pressure (IOP), conjunctive hyperemia, superficial punctate keratopathy and hyperpigmentation of eyelid at baseline, 4, and 12 weeks. Additionally noted were adverse events and patient preferences, measured using a questionnaire at study initiation and at 12 weeks.
AT BASELINE, IOPS WERE (GROUP A: 14.1 ± 2.9 mmHg, B: 14.5 ± 2.9 mmHg; P = 0.658), (Group A: 13.8 ± 2.6 mmHg, B: 14.3 ± 2.8 mmHg; P = 0.715) at 4 weeks, and (Group A: 14.1 ± 2.7 mmHg, B: 14.2 ± 2.7 mmHg; P = 0.538) at 12 weeks. Among the groups, there was no significant difference at any time point after baseline (P = 0.923, 0.951, respectively). All adverse events were not remarkably different after therapy. In regards to patient preference before and after switching therapy, 10 patients (50%) in Group A and 10 patients (63%) in Group B preferred using fixed-combination eye drop therapy.
Effectiveness and safety were maintained in both groups after switching therapy. Overall, patients generally preferred using a fixed-combination therapy.
The purpose of this prospective study was to investigate the intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering effect and safety of latanoprost 0.005% + timolol maleate 0.5% fixed combination eyedrops, now available in Japan.
Thirty-one patients diagnosed with primary open-angle glaucoma who had an insufficient intraocular pressure (IOP) decrease with latanoprost 0.005% eyedrop monotherapy were enrolled. The latanoprost 0.005% eyedrops were discontinued, and administration of latanoprost 0.005%/timolol maleate 0.5% fixed combination eyedrops was initiated without any washout period. IOP was compared before and at months 1, 3, and 6 after the switch. The incidence of adverse reactions was investigated at every follow-up visit.
Mean IOP was 17.3 ± 2.7 mmHg before the switch, 15.5 ± 2.6 mmHg one month after the switch, 14.9 ± 2.4 mmHg 3 months after the switch, and 15.1 ± 2.2 mmHg 6 months after the switch, indicating that IOP decreased significantly after the change. The IOP reduction rate was 9.9% ± 11.5% after one month, 13.1% ± 10.9% after 3 months, and 11.2% ± 11.8% after 6 months. Two patients (6.5%) discontinued therapy due to adverse reactions (one case each of itchiness and bradycardia).
When latanoprost 0.005% eyedrop monotherapy was replaced by latanoprost 0.005% + timolol maleate 0.5% fixed combination eyedrops, IOP decreased significantly without increasing the frequency of administration, and safety was satisfactory.
To evaluate the intraocular pressure (IOP) reducing effect of a fixed combination of 0.005% latanoprost and 0.5% timolol in patients with an IOP of 30 mmHg or higher.
Prospective, randomized clinical trial.
Patients had received no prior medical glaucoma treatment. Routine ophthalmic examinations and visual field tests were performed before and after treatment for each patient.
Mean IOP was 32.28 +/- 0.92 mmHg before treatment. Mean IOP levels were 18.75 +/- 0.68 for the first day, 17.96 +/- 0.90 for the first week and 17.64 +/- 0.66 for the first month after treatment.
A fixed combination of latanoprost 0.005% and timolol 0.5% is effective in significantly reducing IOP in glaucoma patients with an IOP greater than 30 mmHg.
Latanoprost 0.005% + timolol maleate 0.5% combined eyedrops were recently made available in Japan. We prospectively investigated the intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering effect, visual preservation effect, and adverse reactions of a one-year administration of this fixed combination.
The subjects included 162 eyes from 162 patients diagnosed with either primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension and using an unfixed combination of latanoprost 0.005% and timolol maleate 0.5%. The unfixed combination was discontinued and replaced with the latanoprost 0.005% + timolol maleate 0.5% fixed combination with no washout period. IOP was measured before (baseline) and 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after the change. The mean deviation value of Humphrey field analysis was compared. Adverse reactions were examined at every follow-up.
No significant differences were found between mean IOP values obtained at baseline (mean ± standard deviation, 15.2 ± 3.3 mmHg) 3 months (15.1 ± 3.2 mmHg), 6 months (15.3 ± 3.1 mmHg), 9 months (15.3 ± 3.1 mmHg), and 12 months (15.1 ± 3.2 mmHg) after the change from the unfixed to the fixed combination of eyedrops (P = 0.212). In addition, no significant differences were observed between mean deviation values obtained at baseline (-9.11 ± 6.94 dB) and 12 months (-10.08 ± 7.24 dB) after the change (P = 0.114). Thirty-one patients discontinued the fixed combination within 12 months of replacement, due to an insufficient IOP decrease (20 patients, 12.3%) and adverse reactions (11 patients, 6.8%).
Following replacement of two eyedrop medications (latanoprost 0.005% and timolol maleate 0.5%) by one fixed combination (latanoprost 0.005% + timolol maleate 0.5%), IOP and visual field were preserved. However, 20% of the patients discontinued the new treatment because of an insufficient IOP decrease and complaints of adverse reactions.
To evaluate conjunctival hyperemia associated with bimatoprost 0.01% treatment in patients who replace latanoprost 0.005% with bimatoprost 0.01%.
Randomized, double-masked, vehicle-controlled, multicenter study of patients with ocular hypertension or glaucoma whose intraocular pressure (IOP) was adequately controlled on latanoprost monotherapy. At baseline, patients discontinued latanoprost and were randomized to treatment with once-daily bimatoprost 0.01% (n = 151) or vehicle (n = 71). The primary endpoint was the peak change in macroscopic hyperemia (conjunctival hyperemia evaluated by gross visual inspection) from baseline to month 1.
Bimatoprost 0.01% was noninferior to vehicle in the mean [standard deviation] peak change from baseline macroscopic hyperemia at month 1 (0.18 [0.46] in the bimatoprost 0.01% group vs 0.02 [0.32] in the vehicle group, P = 0.009). The between-group difference was 0.15 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.04, 0.26), which was within the predefined margin for noninferiority of 0.5 on a hyperemia grading scale of 0 to +3. There were no statistically significant between-group differences in the percentage of patients with a ≥1-grade increase in macroscopic hyperemia from baseline. Mean IOP was decreased from baseline (-0.7 to -1.3 mm Hg) in the bimatoprost 0.01% group (P ≤ 0.002) and was increased from baseline (+3.3 to +3.6 mm Hg) in the vehicle group (P < 0.001) at month 1. There were no statistically significant between-group differences in adverse events.
Bimatoprost 0.01% was noninferior to vehicle with respect to conjunctival hyperemia in this study population. Replacement of latanoprost with bimatoprost 0.01% in patients with ocular hypertension or glaucoma can result in additional IOP reduction without clinically important hyperemia.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering efficacy and safety of bimatoprost 0.01% or 0.03% as monotherapy in patients treated with latanoprost 0.005% monotherapy who require additional IOP lowering for their ocular hypertension or open-angle glaucoma.
Two prospective, investigator-masked, randomized, parallel-group, multicenter studies enrolled patients with baseline IOP ≥20 mmHg after ≥30 days of latanoprost 0.005% monotherapy. Patients were randomized to 12 weeks of study treatment (study 1, bimatoprost 0.01% once daily or bimatoprost 0.01% once daily plus brimonidine 0.1% three times daily; study 2, bimatoprost 0.03% once daily or bimatoprost 0.03% once daily plus fixed-combination brimonidine 0.2%/timolol 0.5% twice daily). Patient evaluations at weeks 4 and 12 included IOP at 8 am, 10 am, and 4 pm and safety assessments. Results in the monotherapy study arms (bimatoprost 0.01% or 0.03%) are presented.
Latanoprost-treated baseline mean diurnal IOP (± standard error of the mean) was 22.2±0.3 mmHg and 22.1±0.4 mmHg in the bimatoprost 0.01% and bimatoprost 0.03% treatment arms, respectively (P=0.957). In both treatment arms, mean (± standard error of the mean) reduction in IOP from latanoprost-treated baseline was statistically significant at each time point at both follow-up visits (P<0.001), ranging from 3.7±0.4 (17.0%) mmHg to 4.4±0.4 (19.9%) mmHg with bimatoprost 0.01% and from 2.8±0.5 (12.8%) mmHg to 3.9±0.5 (16.7%) mmHg with bimatoprost 0.03%. Mean percentage IOP reduction from latanoprost-treated baseline was numerically greater with bimatoprost 0.01% than with bimatoprost 0.03% throughout follow-up. The incidence of conjunctival hyperemia of mild or greater severity increased from latanoprost baseline after 12 weeks of treatment only in the bimatoprost 0.03% treatment arm.
Many patients who do not reach their target IOP on latanoprost can achieve additional IOP lowering and maintain monotherapy by replacing latanoprost with bimatoprost. Reductions in IOP from latanoprost baseline were larger with bimatoprost 0.01% than with bimatoprost 0.03%, and bimatoprost 0.01% had a more favorable tolerability profile.
The purpose of this study was to examine and compare the conjunctival irritation (congestion, swelling, and discharge) of topical bimatoprost ophthalmic solution 0.01% and bimatoprost ophthalmic solution 0.03% in rabbits.
Six healthy New Zealand White rabbits were treated with either bimatoprost 0.01% or bimatoprost 0.03% (3 animals/group). One dose (2 drops/dose) of study medication was administered to the right eye of each animal every 30 minutes for 4.5 hours. Approximately 1 hour after the last dose, conjunctival irritation was assessed using a slit-lamp biomicroscope to individually evaluate conjunctival congestion, swelling, and discharge.
The mean conjunctival congestion, swelling and discharge scores for bimatoprost 0.03% were 1.67, 0.33 and 0.33, respectively, and for bimatoprost 0.01% were 2.00, 0.33 and 1.33, respectively.
Despite the lower drug concentration of the 0.01% formulation, bimatoprost 0.01% does not reduce conjunctival irritation, including conjunctival congestion, swelling, and discharge, in rabbits compared to bimatoprost 0.03%. Further studies would be needed to determine whether the increase in the mean conjunctival congestion and discharge scores may be attributed to the increased BAK concentration in the bimatoprost 0.01% formulation.
Bimatoprost 0.01% was developed for improved tolerability over bimatoprost 0.03%, while maintaining efficacy in lowering intraocular pressure (IOP). This multicenter, prospective, open-label, observational study was designed to investigate the efficacy and tolerability of bimatoprost 0.01% in routine clinical practice.
Data were collected from 10,337 patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension attending 1334 centers in Germany. The primary efficacy outcome was mean change in IOP in each eye from baseline to 10-14 weeks after initiation of bimatoprost 0.01%. Target IOP, prior therapies, additional treatments, and adverse events were also assessed. All treatment decisions were at the physicians' discretion.
Bimatoprost 0.01% significantly lowered mean IOP from baseline by -4.1 mmHg (P < 0.0001) in all patients after a mean of 10.45 weeks. In patients without previous treatment, bimatoprost 0.01% reduced mean IOP from baseline by -6.5 mmHg (P < 0.0001). Bimatoprost 0.01% also significantly reduced IOP in patients previously treated with monotherapy of β-blockers, prostaglandin analogs, carbonic anhydrase inhibitors or bimatoprost 0.03%. No adverse events were reported by 93.9% of patients during treatment with bimatoprost 0.01%; the most commonly reported adverse events were eye irritation (2.0%), ocular hyperemia (1.4%), and conjunctival hyperemia (1.2%). Physicians and patients rated tolerability and adherence as high, and most patients said they would continue with bimatoprost 0.01% treatment.
Bimatoprost 0.01% can produce additional IOP-lowering effects when used in routine clinical practice in patients who have received prior therapy, in addition to lowering IOP in previously untreated patients. A high rate of continuation of therapy with bimatoprost 0.01% was observed in patients who switched from a variety of different medications. The results suggest that bimatoprost 0.01% is a suitable first-choice therapy in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension.
The purpose of this study was to compare the aqueous humor concentrations of bimatoprost acid after topical instillation in rabbits of bimatoprost ophthalmic solution 0.01% and bimatoprost ophthalmic solution 0.03%, two commercially available intraocular pressure-lowering medications.
Male Dutch Belted rabbits were divided into two teratment groups (four rabbits/eight eyes per group): bimatoprost 0.01% and bimatoprost 0.03%. Thirty microliters (μL) of study medication was to pically instilled into both eyes of each animal. Thirty minutes and 90 minutes after instillation, aqueous humor samples were collected. These samples were analyzed by reverse-phase high-performance liquid chromatography for bimatoprost acid concentration.
Following a single topical ocular instillation, the bimatoprost 0.01% formulation had a lower mean aqueous humor concentration of bimatoprost acid than the bimatoprost 0.03% formulation at both 30 minutes (11.5 ± 2.1 ng/mL versus 37.8 ± 28.8 ng/mL; P = 0.17) and 90 minutes (20.8 ± 5.7 ng/mL versus 45.8 ± 14.3 ng/mL; P = 0.03) after topical instillation.
Topical ocular instillation of bimatoprost 0.01% produced significantly lower bimatoprost acid concentration in the aqueous humor of rabbits than bimatoprost 0.03%, despite the 4-fold increase of benzalkonium chloride contained in bimatoprost 0.01%.
This study was designed to evaluate the occurrence and severity of ocular hyperemia in subjects with elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) due to primary open angle glaucoma (POAG) or ocular hypertension (OHT) following treatment with bimatoprost 0.01% in a real-world clinical setting.
This was an open-label, observational study conducted at 67 centers in Canada. Subjects with elevated IOP due to POAG or OHT instilled bimatoprost 0.01% topically as monotherapy once daily. Ocular hyperemia was graded by the investigator at baseline and weeks 6 and 12 using a photographic five-point grading scale. Change in IOP from baseline was also evaluated at these time points. This analysis includes only the subgroup of 522 subjects who were naïve to IOP-lowering medication prior to the study.
After 12 weeks of treatment with bimatoprost 0.01%, hyperemia was graded as none-to-mild (grades 0, +0.5, or +1) for 93.3% of subjects and as moderate-to-severe (grades +2 or +3) for 6.7%. At weeks 6 and 12, most subjects (93.2% and 93.5%) had no change in hyperemia grade from baseline. IOP was reduced by 7.4 mmHg (29.8%) at week 6 and 7.7 mmHg (30.9%) at week 12 from baseline.
This real-world, observational study found that bimatoprost 0.01% instilled once daily reduced IOP by a mean of 30% from baseline without moderate or severe ocular hyperemia in 93% of treatment-naïve subjects with POAG or OHT.
The objective of this in vivo study was to compare the incidence of vasodilation in guinea pigs following topical administration of bimatoprost ophthalmic solutions 0.01% and 0.03%.
The study comprised 20 guinea pigs assigned to 2 treatment groups (10 per treatment group) to receive either bimatoprost 0.01% or bimatoprost 0.03%. Animals were hand-held under 2.75 x magnification to score ocular vasodilation (a measure of hyperemia), using a scoring system developed at Alcon Research, Ltd. Following baseline ocular scoring, each animal received a 30 muL dose to the left eye of either bimatoprost 0.01% (3 mug) or bimatoprost 0.03% (9 mug). Vasodilation was again scored at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 hours after dosing. Incidence of vasodilation was calculated as the percent of total eyes in each 2-hour time interval with scores >/=2.
The incidence of vasodilation was higher in the bimatoprost 0.01% treatment group (range, 45.0% to 60.0%) than the bimatoprost 0.03% treatment group (range, 30.0% to 52.2%) at all post-dosing time points.
The 2 bimatoprost formulations elicited ocular vasodilation of long duration (>6 hours) in the guinea pig model, with the bimatoprost 0.01% treatment group showing a higher incidence of ocular vasodilation than the bimatoprost 0.03% treatment group. Further clinical studies would be needed to determine whether the higher incidence of vasodilation may also be attributed to the increased BAK concentration in the bimatoprost 0.01% formulation.
Joan-En Chang-Lin, Amy L Batoosingh, David A Hollander, Rhett M Schiffman, Diane D-S Tang-LiuAllergan, Inc, Irvine, CA, USAWe read with great interest the recent article by Ogundele and Jasek,1 in which the authors concluded that bimatoprost ophthalmic solution 0.01% (Lumigan®; Allergan, Inc, Irvine, CA) produced lower bimatoprost acid concentration than bimatoprost ophthalmic solution 0.03% (Lumigan; Allergan, Inc) in the aqueous humor of rabbits. This conclusion was made based on two treatment time points (30 and 90 minutes) with a small sample size (n = 4) at each time point and with large variability.
Glaucoma is a chronic progressive optic neuropathy characterized by progressive loss of retinal ganglion cells, which manifests clinically with loss of optic disc neuroretinal rim tissue, defects in the retinal nerve fiber layer, and deficits on functional visual field testing. The goal of glaucoma treatment is to reduce the intraocular pressure to a level that prevents or minimizes the progressive loss of vision. The current standard of management for the newly diagnosed primary open angle glaucoma (PAOG) patient is to start topical medication. Available topical medications include: beta-adrenergic antagonists, alpha-adrenergic agonists, carbonic anhydraze inhibitors, prostaglandin analogues and miotics. In some patients, IOP is not adequately controlled by monotherapy. In those refractory patients, where more efficacy is required, shifting to another medication or adding a second medication is indicated. The complimentary action between two drugs serves as the basis for combination medications. One avenue of delivering a second medication is through a fixed combination medication that has the advantage of providing two medicines within one drop. Bimatoprost/timolol represents a new fixed combination which is clinically and statistically more effective than either of its active constituents for patients with refractory glaucoma. As regard the safety of the combination, there were no signs or symptoms of intolerance and the incidence of conjunctival hyperemia was clinically and statistically significantly less than each of the two components separately. Bimatoprost/timolol fixed combination offers cost and time savings, which may enhance compliance; also reducing the amount of preservative applied to the eye, will improve tolerability and may also favorably improve eventual surgical outcomes in patients who might require filtering procedures.
Bimatoprost ophthalmic solution 0.03% was approved in the US for reducing intraoccular pressure (IOP) based on two double-masked, active-controlled clinical trials. Four additional long-term studies (≥12 months) were conducted; however, the aggregate safety profile of the six studies has not been reported.
Adverse events (AEs) were pooled from six double-masked, active-controlled, long-term clinical trials in which subjects received bimatoprost 0.03% once daily (QD) or twice daily (BID) as an eyedrop. AE terms were converted to MedDRA (V.11.0) Preferred Terms and analyzed.
In total, 1409 patients received more than one dose of bimatoprost 0.03% QD or BID. Most AEs were mild in severity and reported by 86.7% (QD) and 94.8% (BID) of subjects (≤12 months of treatment). AEs reported through month 12 (aggregate incidence of ≥5%) were conjunctival hyperemia, increased eyelash growth, eye pruritus, periocular skin hyperpigmentation, eye irritation, dry eye, and hypertrichosis. AE onset was generally reported within four months of treatment. The cumulative incidence of common AEs in the QD treatment group at 24-48 months was similar to that measured at 12 months of treatment.
Bimatoprost 0.03% has a favorable safety and tolerability profile as characterized by six long-term studies. Common AEs were due to the known pharmacological activity of bimatoprost and reversible with treatment cessation.