 |
 |

Evaluation of Timolol in Chronic Open-Angle GlaucomaOnce a Day vs Twice a Day
David B. Soll, MD
Arch Ophthalmol. 1980;98(12):2178-2181.
Abstract
Regimens of once-a-day or twice-aday 0.25% timolol ophthalmic solution were compared for efficacy and tolerability in a four-week study of 41 patients with chronic open-angle glaucoma and elevated, untreated intraocular pressure. Significant reductions in IOP relative to untreated baseline values were achieved within a range of 18% to 25%. No significant between-group differences were noted, although the twice-a-day group had somewhat lower IOPs at each evaluation point and the once-a-day group had somewhat fewer subjective symptoms of local irritation. A statistically significant decrease from baseline in mean pulse rate was noted in the twice-a-day treatment group after two weeks; no clinically significant or serious adverse reactions occurred in any patient. Both once-daily and twice-daily administrations of 0.25% timolol ophthalmic solution were found to be effective and well tolerated in the population studied.
Author Affiliations
From the Department of Ophthalmology, Hahnemann Medical College and Hospital, Philadelphia.
Footnotes
Accepted for publication April 8, 1980.
Reprint requests to 5001 Frankford Ave, Philadelphia, PA 19124 (Dr Soll).
CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Technorati Twitter
What's this?
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
A 12 week study comparing the fixed combination of latanoprost and timolol with the concomitant use of the individual components in patients with open angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension
Diestelhorst and Larsson
Br J Ophthalmol 2004;88:199-203.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Randomized Clinical Trials on Medical Treatment of Glaucoma: Are They Appropriate to Guide Clinical Practice?
Rossetti et al.
Arch Ophthalmol 1993;111:96-103.
ABSTRACT
Apraclonidine: A One-Week Dose-Response Study
Jampel et al.
Arch Ophthalmol 1988;106:1069-1073.
ABSTRACT
Effect of Topical Timolol Maleate on Exercise Performance
Doyle et al.
Arch Ophthalmol 1984;102:1517-1518.
ABSTRACT
|