You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 102 No. 12, December 1984 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  ARTICLE
 This Article
 • Reply to article
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal

Timolol v guanethidine-epinephrine formulations in the treatment of glaucoma. An open clinical trial

P. F. Hoyng and N. L. Verbey

Patients with glaucoma received either 3% guanethidine-0.5% epinephrine (20 patients) or 1% guanethidine-0.2% epinephrine (20 patients) and then 0.5% timolol maleate. The fall in intraocular pressure during 3% guanethidine-0.5% epinephrine therapy (10.1 mm Hg [34.4%] reduction) was higher than during timolol therapy (7.5 mm Hg [25.5%] reduction) and the response to 1% guanethidine-0.2% epinephrine therapy (7.9 mm Hg [29%] reduction) equaled the response to timolol (7.3 mm Hg [26.8%] reduction). During 3% guanethidine-0.5% epinephrine therapy, 24 (67.7%) of 36 eyes had an average IOP lower than 22 mm Hg, compared with 16 (44.4%) of 36 timolol-treated eyes. With 1% guanethidine-0.2% epinephrine, IOP in 27 (73%) of 37 eyes was less than 22 mm Hg v 23 (62.2%) of 37 timolol-treated eyes. Both guanethidine-epinephrine formulations increased outflow facility. Since timolol produced few side effects, it appears to be the therapy of choice. However, in patients who do not respond sufficiently to timolol, both guanethidine-epinephrine formulations are potent alternatives.





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1984 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.