 |
|
Latanoprost and Timolol Combination Therapy vs Monotherapy
One-Year Randomized Trial
Eve J. Higginbotham, MD;
Robert Feldman, MD;
Michael Stiles, MD;
Harvey Dubiner, MD;
for the Fixed Combination Investigative Group
Arch Ophthalmol. 2002;120:915-922.
ABSTRACT
| |
Objective To compare the efficacy and safety of a fixed combination of 0.005%
latanoprost and 0.5% timolol maleate administered once daily vs monotherapy
with either 0.005% latanoprost once daily or 0.5% timolol twice daily.
Methods Patients with either primary or secondary open-angle glaucoma or ocular
hypertension participated in a 6-month, randomized, double-masked, multicenter
study with 3 parallel treatment groups. The double-masked period was preceded
by a 2- to 4-week "run-in" treatment with timolol. Subjects could receive
fixed combination therapy during a 6-month open-label extension.
Main Outcome Measure The difference between groups in mean diurnal intraocular pressure reduction
in study eye(s) from baseline through 6 months of treatment.
Results Overall, 418 patients were enrolled in the study; 332 completed the
open-label phase. Diurnal intraocular pressure levels were similar at baseline,
but at week 26, they were 19.9 ± 3.4 mm Hg in the fixed combination
therapy group, 20.8 ± 4.6 mm Hg in latanoprost-treated patients, and
23.4 ± 5.4 mm Hg in timolol-treated patients (data are given as mean
± SD). The mean change from baseline was greater among patients receiving
fixed combination therapy compared with each monotherapy group (P<.01). Fixed combination therapy effectively lowered intraocular
pressure levels for up to 1 year. All treatments were well tolerated.
Conclusion The combination of 0.005% latanoprost and 0.5% timolol administered
once daily is effective and well tolerated for up to 12 months.
INTRODUCTION
GLAUCOMA IS a leading cause of irreversible blindness.1
The only effective and clinically proved means of managing the condition is
to reduce the intraocular pressure (IOP), primarily with ocular-hypotensive
medications.2-3 Given that medical
management is the first line of treatment, compliance is an ongoing important
issue for physicians and patients. More complex medication regimens have been
associated with reduced compliance in patients with ocular hypertension and
glaucoma.4-5 Combining 2 IOP-reducing
medications in one bottle may help patients adhere to therapeutic regimens
by reducing the number of medication containers used and the total number
of doses administered. Before recommending a combination therapy, however,
its long-term efficacy must be determined.
Small short-term studies6-7
have suggested that the combination of latanoprost and timolol may be more
effective in reducing IOP than either therapy alone. The present research
compared the long-term efficacy and safety of a fixed combination of 0.005%
latanoprost and 0.5% timolol maleate administered once daily vs monotherapy
with either 0.5% timolol twice daily or 0.005% latanoprost once daily in a
large sample of patients.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
PATIENTS
This randomized, prospective, double-masked study with an open-label
extension was conducted at 38 centers. Approval by the Institutional Review
Board of each investigator's institution was obtained before the first patient
was included from that site. Eligible patients were 18 years or older; were
diagnosed as having unilateral or bilateral primary open-angle, pigmentary,
or pseudoexfoliative glaucoma or ocular hypertension; had a best-corrected
visual acuity measuring better than 20/200; and provided written informed
consent. Patients were eligible for inclusion if their prestudy IOP was 30
mm Hg or higher without IOP-reducing medication or 25 mm Hg or higher with
prior therapy. Previous timolol or latanoprost therapy was permitted.
Exclusion criteria included a history of acute angle closure or occludable
angles; use of contact lenses; ocular surgery, argon laser trabeculoplasty,
or ocular inflammation or infection within 3 months of the prestudy visit;
hypersensitivity to benzalkonium chloride; or any other abnormal ocular condition
or symptom that the investigator determined precluded study enrollment. The
presence of concomitant diseases that contraindicate adrenergic antagonist
use excluded patients. Nursing mothers, pregnant women, and women who were
of childbearing potential and not using adequate contraception for at least
the previous 3 months were excluded. Patients also were ineligible if they
could not adhere to the treatment or visit plan or had participated in another
clinical study within 1 month of the prestudy visit.
STUDY VISITS AND PROCEDURES
Patients were assessed for eligibility at the prestudy visit, which
took place within the 4 weeks before the baseline visit (Figure 1). During the double-masked treatment period, scheduled
visits were performed at baseline and at weeks 2, 6, 13, and 26; the open-label
extension included visits at weeks 28, 39, and 52. A deviation of ±1
week from baseline was permitted for all subsequent visits. At the baseline
visit, patients were allocated to 1 of 3 treatment groups according to a computer-generated
randomization code list. A single blocked randomization list was generated
for the entire study. Study medication was shipped to the individual study
sites in sets such that each set was a multiple of the block size used in
generating the randomization. Drug was issued according to patient numbers
that were given in consecutive order at baseline. This method of randomization
and drug assignment provided for a stratified randomization schedule, with
study site as the stratification factor.
Intraocular pressure measurements were conducted with a calibrated Goldmann
applanation tonometer at 8 AM, 10 AM, and 4 PM at the baseline visit and at
weeks 2, 13, 26, and 52. At weeks 6, 28, and 39, the IOP was measured only
at 8 AM. Two IOP measurements were performed at least 1 hour apart at the
prestudy visit. During each visit, except the prestudy visit, IOP measurements
were performed in triplicate in each eye. An automated visual field examination
was performed at baseline (unless a documented test had been performed in
the prior 3 months) and at weeks 13, 26, and 52. Visual acuity was assessed
and eyelid and slitlamp biomicroscopy was performed at every visit. Medical
and ocular histories were obtained, and gonioscopy and refraction were performed,
at the prestudy visit. Ophthalmoscopy was performed at the prestudy visit
and at weeks 26 and 52. Any changes in concomitant use of medication or in
ocular findings were noted at every visit.
Adverse events, defined as any undesirable medical event regardless
of whether it was treatment related, were monitored throughout the study and
were coded using World Health Organization terminology. Serious adverse events
included overdoses; those considered to be life threatening, sight threatening,
or disabling; those that required or prolonged hospitalization; or those that
were associated with cancer or a congenital anomaly.
Using standard magnifications and 2 flashes, instant (Polaroid) color
photographs of the whole anterior surface of the iris of each study eye and
of each patient's face were taken between the prestudy and baseline visits
and at weeks 26 and 52. Two masked readers compared the first set of photographs
with those taken at the end of the double-masked and open-label phases to
evaluate the presence or absence of increased iris pigmentation. One masked
reader used the same procedure to evaluate darkening, thickening, or lengthening
of the eyelashes.
STUDY DRUGS
After the prestudy visit and before treatment with study medication,
eligible patients discontinued therapy with other ocular hypotensive agents
and underwent 2 to 4 weeks of "run-in" treatment with 1 drop of 0.5% timolol
twice daily to ensure safety. No washout was required, and the last dose of
timolol run-in treatment was administered at the investigator's site on the
morning of the baseline visit immediately after the first IOP measurement.
During the 6-month double-masked phase, patients were instructed to administer
1 drop of study medication twice a day, at approximately 8 AM and 8 PM, according
to the regimen outlined in Figure 1.
Patients in the fixed combination therapy and in the latanoprost groups administered
medication at 8 AM and placebo at 8 PM; those in the timolol group administered
medication at 8 AM and 8 PM. On the days of visits to the investigator site,
the morning dose was administered immediately after the 8 AM IOP measurements.
Medications were provided in identical coded bottles. Patients were instructed
to apply the first dose in the evening of the day of the baseline visit and
the last dose in the morning of the week 26 visit immediately after the 8
AM IOP measurement. All study participants were offered the opportunity to
receive fixed combination therapy during the 6-month open-label extension.
Throughout the study, both eyes were considered study eyes in patients
with bilateral glaucoma when all inclusion criteria were fulfilled and no
exclusion criteria existed. In cases of bilateral disease in which only 1
eye met all eligibility criteria (study eye), the contralateral eye could
also be treated with the study drug provided that there were no exclusion
criteria for this eye. Patients with unilateral disease were treated only
in the affected eye.
VARIABLES AND ANALYSES
The primary efficacy outcome was the difference between the fixed combination
therapy and the 2 monotherapy groups in mean diurnal IOP reduction in study
eye(s) from baseline through 6 months of treatment. Intraocular pressure time
point values for each eye were the mean of the replicate IOP measurements
taken. Diurnal IOP was calculated as the average of the 8 AM, 10 AM, and 4
PM IOP time point values taken during each full-day visit. In patients with
2 study eyes, the mean IOP at each time point across eyes was used in diurnal
IOP calculations.
Secondary efficacy outcomes were the differences between the fixed combination
therapy and monotherapy groups for the percentages of patients reaching target
IOP levels and the differences among groups in the consistency of IOP reduction
up to 1 year. Treatment failures were patients in whom the diurnal IOP (or
the mean IOP if noted at week 6) was increased at least 10% from baseline
and was 23 mm Hg or higher and in whom such pressure elevation was sustained
on a second examination conducted within 2 weeks. Open-label fixed combination
therapy was started in patients in whom treatment was considered to have failed;
if the IOP remained uncontrolled, they were withdrawn from the study.
Intent-to-treat efficacy analyses during the 6-month double-masked phase
included all patients who received at least 1 drop of study medication. Missing
data were handled as follows: in analyses of diurnal IOP values, the last
available IOP measurement was carried forward; for patients in whom treatment
had failed, the IOP measurement at the time of failure was carried forward;
if IOP data were missing at weeks 2 and 13, week 26 measurements were carried
backward; if IOP data were missing at week 2, the week 13 measurement was
carried backward; diurnal IOP was based on measurements available for that
day; and baseline IOP measurements were carried forward only for patients
with no subsequent treatment IOP measurements. Intent-to-treat efficacy analyses
during the open-label phase included all patients who received at least 1
drop of study medication during the open-label phase and for whom IOP data
were available at weeks 26 and 52. In each phase, subanalyses were performed
for response to medication based on age, race, and sex. Adverse event analyses
in both study phases were based on all randomized patients who received at
least 1 drop of study medication.
Differences in the mean diurnal IOP reduction between groups during
6 months of therapy were estimated (least square mean differences) using a
repeated-measures analysis of covariance with baseline IOP as a covariate;
patient, treatment, visit, and center as main factors; and treatment group–by–visit
and treatment group–by–center interaction factors. The 95% confidence
intervals (CIs) were calculated. Pearson  2 tests compared
proportions of patients in each group reaching target diurnal IOP levels between
groups at week 26. Paired t tests were used to calculate
90% CIs for differences in the mean diurnal IOP levels at weeks 26 and 52;
if the CI was within ±1.5 mm Hg, the diurnal IOP was considered to
be maintained. Before the study, a sample size of 112 patients per treatment
group was calculated as sufficient to detect an IOP reduction of 1.2 mm Hg
from baseline at a single visit with a significance level of .05 and a power
of 0.80. An SD for diurnal IOP change from baseline of 3.2 mm Hg was anticipated.
To allow for withdrawals, 130 to 140 patients were included in each treatment
group. Data are given as mean (± SD) unless otherwise indicated.
RESULTS
SIX-MONTH DOUBLE-MASKED PHASE
In all, 418 patients were included in the 6-month double-masked phase
of the study: 138 in the fixed combination therapy group, 140 in the timolol
group, and 140 in the latanoprost group (Figure 2). Between 1 and 30 patients were recruited in each of the
38 centers; 8 centers contributed 5 patients or fewer each. Of the 418 patients
randomized, 345 completed 6 months of assigned therapy. Investigators switched
29 patients in whom treatment had failed to open-label treatment with fixed
combination therapy (17 from the timolol group, 10 from the latanoprost group,
and 2 from the fixed combination therapy group); 52 patients (including 8
in whom treatment had failed and who had been switched to fixed combination
therapy) were withdrawn from the study (24 from the timolol group, 15 from
the latanoprost group, and 13 from the fixed combination therapy group). The
most common reasons for withdrawal were uncontrolled IOP (n = 20), other adverse
events (n = 9), closure of a study center (n = 8), protocol violation (n =
6), and inadequate follow-up (n = 5).
|
|
|
|
Figure 2. Patient disposition.
|
|
|
Treatment groups were similar at baseline (Table 1), although the male-female ratio was somewhat higher in
the timolol group and more patients in the fixed combination therapy group
had a homogeneously blue, gray, or green iris. Primary open-angle glaucoma
and ocular hypertension were the most common diagnoses. Most patients (84%)
had received IOP-reducing medications within 3 months before enrolling in
the study.
|
|
|
|
Table 1. Six-Month Masked Phase: Demographic Characteristics at Randomization*
|
|
|
Diurnal IOP levels were similar at baseline: 23.1 ± 3.8 mm Hg
in the fixed combination therapy group, 22.9 ± 4.1 mm Hg in the latanoprost
group, and 23.7 ± 4.1 mm Hg in the timolol group (Figure 3). At week 26, the diurnal IOP levels were 19.9 ±
3.4 mm Hg in the fixed combination therapy group, 20.8 ± 4.6 mm Hg
in the latanoprost-treated patients, and 23.4 ± 5.4 mm Hg in the timolol-treated
patients. The mean change from baseline across weeks 2 to 26 was statistically
significantly greater among patients receiving fixed combination therapy compared
with those in each monotherapy group. The least square mean difference between
fixed combination therapy– and latanoprost-treated patients was -1.0
mm Hg (95% CI, -1.7 to -0.3 mm Hg; P
= .005) and between fixed combination therapy– and timolol-treated patients
was -2.9 mm Hg (95% CI, -3.5 to -2.3 mm Hg; P<.001). There was no statistically significant difference in response
to the fixed combination vs latanoprost or vs timolol based on age (P = .79 and .99, respectively), race (P = .66 and .11, respectively), or sex (P
= .29 and .08, respectively). The mean IOP reductions were fairly consistent
across measurement times in all treatment groups at week 26 (Figure 4).
|
|
|
|
Figure 3. Mean (± SD) diurnal intraocular
pressure (IOP) levels over time by treatment group.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 4. Mean diurnal intraocular pressure
(IOP) levels at 8 AM, 10 AM, and 4 PM at week 26 by treatment group.
|
|
|
Compared with timolol-treated patients, more patients receiving fixed
combination therapy achieved IOP levels lower than 18 mm Hg and lower than
21 mm Hg (Table 2). Differences
between latanoprost-treated patients and those receiving fixed combination
therapy were not statistically significant at any target IOP level.
|
|
|
|
Table 2. Percentages of Patients Reaching Target Intraocular Pressure
Levels After 6 Months of Treatment
|
|
|
Of the 418 randomized patients, 258 reported adverse events. Table 3 lists adverse events that occurred
in 1% or more of the patients. The most common complaint was irritation of
the eye (in 46 of the 418 subjects). Investigators noted hyperemia involving
the bulbar conjunctiva in 9 patients in the fixed combination therapy group
and in 18 in the latanoprost group. Four patients reported hypertrichosis
(2 each in the fixed combination therapy and latanoprost groups). Two latanoprost-treated
patients and 2 patients receiving fixed combination therapy reported increased
iris pigmentation. The single patient with iritis in the latanoprost group
continued receiving study medication, and the event resolved. Two cases of
macular edema occurred (1 each in the fixed combination therapy and latanoprost
groups); both patients had diabetes mellitus and were treated with focal laser
therapy. Headache (in 16 of the 418 patients) and upper respiratory tract
infection (in 30 of the 418 patients) were the most commonly noted systemic
adverse events. Four patients had clinically significant changes in either
blood pressure or heart rate (2 in the fixed combination therapy group and
1 each in the other treatment groups), and 2 receiving fixed combination therapy
exhibited bradycardia.
|
|
|
|
Table 3. Number of Ocular Adverse Events in the 6-Month Double-Masked
Phase by Treatment Group*
|
|
|
Eye photographs were available for 318 patients. The 2 readers noted
iris changes in 8 of 120 and 9 of 113 patients undergoing fixed combination
therapy and in 9 of 112 and 11 of 106 latanoprost-treated patients. Incidences
of eyelash changes were as follows: fixed combination therapy, 29 of 114 patients;
and latanoprost therapy, 21 of 106 patients. An additional 4 of 20 patients
who switched from either timolol or latanoprost to fixed combination therapy
demonstrated eyelash changes.
SIX-MONTH OPEN-LABEL EXTENSION PHASE
In all, 332 patients completed the 6-month open-label extension phase
of the study and received fixed combination therapy (Figure 1). Of these patients, 113 were originally assigned to the
fixed combination therapy group, 106 to the latanoprost group, and 94 to the
timolol group. In addition, 19 of 29 patients who were switched to open-label
fixed combination therapy during the double-masked phase achieved IOP control
(12 of 17 from the timolol group, 7 of 10 from the latanoprost group, and
0 of 2 from the fixed combination therapy group) and were included in the
analyses. Thirty-two patients were withdrawn from this phase of the study;
the most common reasons for withdrawal were closure of a study center (n =
16), uncontrolled IOP (n = 8), and other adverse events (n = 3).
The diurnal IOP levels at weeks 26 and 52 for the patients originally
receiving fixed combination therapy were 19.4 ± 3.0 and 18.9 ±
3.2 mm Hg, respectively (P>.05). At weeks 26 and
52, the diurnal IOP levels in the group that originally received latanoprost
therapy were 20.1 ± 3.8 and 20.1 ± 3.4 mm Hg, respectively (P>.05); they were 21.6 ± 3.7 and 19.3 ± 3.5
mm Hg, respectively (P<.001) in the group that
originally received timolol. There was no statistically significant difference
in response based on age, race, or sex.
Overall, 186 patients reported an adverse event during the open-label
extension phase of the trial (Table 4).
Common ocular adverse events included eye irritation (burning, stinging, and
itching), errors of refraction, and corneal disorders (punctate epithelial
erosions and cataract). Most adverse events were considered mild. Upper respiratory
tract infections were the most common systemic adverse event. Compared with
baseline, 5 patients exhibited clinically significant changes in blood pressure
or heart rate. Five cases of hypertension or aggravated hypertension, 1 of
cardiac failure, and 2 of tachycardia were reported.
|
|
|
|
Table 4. Number of Adverse Events in the 12-Month Open-Label Phase
for All 418 Patients*
|
|
|
At week 52, photographs were available for 302 patients. Among those
originally receiving timolol, increased iris pigmentation was noted in 17
of 86 patients by one reader and in 9 of 90 patients by the other. The 2 readers
noted iris changes in 13 of 103 and 7 of 109 patients receiving fixed combination
therapy and in 17 of 103 and 11 of 103 latanoprost-treated patients. Irides
that were green and brown or blue or gray with brown were the most prone to
darkening. Eyelash changes were noted in 18 of 89 patients originally treated
with timolol, 32 of 105 in the original fixed combination therapy group, and
27 of 99 originally treated with latanoprost.
COMMENT
The results of the present research demonstrate that the fixed combination
of 0.005% latanoprost and 0.5% timolol is more effective in reducing IOP levels
than either therapy alone, with a greater difference in efficacy between fixed
combination therapy and timolol than between fixed combination therapy and
latanoprost. Because timolol reduces aqueous humor production and latanoprost
increases uveoscleral outflow, the hypotensive actions of the medications
are expected to be at least partially additive, and, in fact, small short-term
studies6-7 have shown additional
13% to 36% reductions in IOP in patients receiving latanoprost and timolol
compared with monotherapy. Data from the present sample of 418 patients followed
up for up to 1 year confirm the additive hypotensive effect of latanoprost
and timolol and support the findings of a study8
that included 139 patients in whom the difference in the IOP-lowering effect
of fixed combination therapy vs timolol was greater than that between fixed
combination therapy vs latanoprost. We found that the fixed combination therapy
effectively lowered the IOP for up to 1 year, an important observation because
timolol has been shown to lose efficacy in some patients after long-term use.9
Although the results of the double-masked phase of the study showed
statistically significant differences in efficacy among treatment groups,
some might argue that they are less significant clinically. However, the research
included patients who were not only refractory to their ocular hypotensive
agents but who also had baseline IOP levels while receiving timolol that were
lower than levels that are typical in studies that include patients in whom
all of the IOP-reducing medications have been washed out. Either of these
factors could have depressed differences in IOP reductions between patients
receiving fixed combination therapy and those receiving monotherapy.
Two additional features of the study design also may have influenced
results. First, fixed combination therapy was administered in the morning,
but latanoprost monotherapy was given in the evening. While there is some
evidence that the prostaglandin analogue has greater efficacy on daytime IOP
if it is administered in the evening,10 others11-12 have reported no difference in response
to therapy in patients administered latanoprost in the morning vs in the evening.
Although the present design may have favored the evening administration of
latanoprost, clinicians may want to advise some patients to instill the fixed
combination in the morning. McCannel et al13
noted that aqueous humor production is not affected during sleep by a  -blocker
administered in the evening. In addition, the morning administration of fixed
combination therapy may enhance patient compliance and reduce the risk of
nocturnal arterial hypotension that is sometimes associated with the nighttime
use of -blockers such as timolol.14
Second, most patients had used antiglaucoma medications within the 3
months leading up to the study and, by inclusion criteria, had prestudy IOP
levels of 25 mm Hg or higher. It is likely that many of these patients responded
differently from those who had not previously been treated with antiglaucoma
medication, a factor that may partly explain the wide range of IOP reductions
reported. In general, the effect of such design factors is difficult to estimate
in studies that focus on the efficacy of antiglaucoma medications in either
glaucomatous or hypertensive eyes.
Although not studied herein, the relative therapeutic simplicity of
fixed combination therapy may increase patient compliance. Kass et al4 compared compliance in patients prescribed timolol
twice daily vs pilocarpine hydrochloride 4 times daily and found increased
compliance with the twice-daily regimen (84.3% ± 14.0% vs 77.7% ±
18.7%; P = .01). Gurwitz et al5
evaluated medication compliance in 2440 elderly patients with glaucoma during
a 1-year period; nearly one quarter of the patients did not refill a prescription
when expected, and medications requiring more than twice-daily administration
more frequently went unfilled. Further research concerning the potential influence
of fixed combination therapy on medication compliance is needed.
The fixed combination regimen was generally safe and well tolerated.
The higher rate of conjunctival hyperemia in patients receiving fixed combination
and latanoprost therapies may be related to differences in concentrations
of the preservative, benzalkonium chloride, which irritates the conjunctiva
and the cornea.15 Concentrations of benzalkonium
chloride were 0.1 mg/mL in the fixed combination therapy solution, 0.2 mg/mL
in the latanoprost solution, 0.1 mg/mL in the timolol solution, and 0.1 mg/mL
in the placebo, which was administered once daily to patients in the fixed
combination therapy and latanoprost groups. Thus, patients in the latanoprost
group received the greatest amount of benzalkonium chloride daily and evidenced
the highest frequency of conjunctival hyperemia. Because patients receiving
fixed combination therapy had the second highest rate of conjunctival hyperemia,
the condition may also be related to prostaglandin use rather than to the
preservative.
Rates of increased iris pigmentation assessed from photographs were
somewhat higher in the present study than those reported in US trials,16-17 but were similar to the 10% rate
reported in a trial conducted in the United Kingdom.18
Differences in patient demographics and the difficulty of evaluating differences
in rating criteria across studies may account for discrepant findings. To
our knowledge, this is the first large study to prospectively measure changes
in eyelashes after this specific prostaglandin analogue therapy for glaucoma,
although other investigators19-20
have reported this adverse effect. While it is difficult to assess subtle
eyelash changes clinically, it is important that practitioners be aware of
such observations so that patients can be appropriately informed. Thus far,
changes in iris color and lashes seem to be cosmetic, but these unique adverse
effects continue to require close observation.
In summary, the fixed combination of 0.005% latanoprost and 0.5% timolol
administered once daily in the morning for 26 weeks was more effective in
controlling IOP than monotherapy with either timolol or latanoprost. The efficacy
of the fixed combination therapy was maintained for up to 52 weeks and was
as well tolerated as the individual therapies alone. Although clinicians must
screen patients to ensure that use of a -blocker is not contraindicated,
for many patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension, the treatment
offers a convenient combination of 2 medications administered once daily—a
dosing schedule that may enhance patient compliance while effectively lowering
IOP levels.
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Submitted for publication August 10, 2001; final revision received January 31, 2002;
accepted February 12, 2002.
This study was supported by Pharmacia & Upjohn, Inc, Kalamazoo,
Mich; and in part by an unrestricted grant from Research to Prevent Blindness
Inc, New York, NY (Dr Higginbotham).
| Fixed Combination Investigative Group
Baltimore, Md: Eve J. Higginbotham, MD (principal
investigator). Richmond, Va: Robert Allen, MD. Sacramento, Calif: Barbara Arnold, MD; Richard Lewis, MD. Providence, RI: Robert Bahr, MD. Atlanta,
Ga: Reay Brown, MD; Douglas Day, MD. Tampa, Fla: Moira Burke, MD. Reading, Pa: Moiz Carim,
MD. Anaheim, Calif: Arthur Charap, MD. Tacoma, Wash: Kevin Chismire, MD. Portland, Ore: George Cioffi, MD; John Samples, MD. Morrow, Ga: Harvey Dubiner, MD. Houston, Tex: Robert
Feldman, MD. Dallas, Tex: Ronald Fellman, MD. Wheaton, Ill: David Gieser, MD.Madison,
Wis: Gregg Heatley, MD. Concord, NH: Andre
d'Hemecourt, MD. Louisville, Ky: David Karp, MD. Boulder, Colo: Donald Kellum, MD. Austin,
Tex: Robert Laibovitz, MD. Kansas City, Mo:
Charles Lederer, MD; Michael Stiles, MD.Memphis, Tenn:
Alan Mandell, MD.South Bend, Ind: Steven Meyer, MD. Denver, Colo: Andrew Michael, MD; Robert Shields, MD. Charlotte, NC: Thomas Mundorf, MD; Michael Rotberg, MD. Galveston, Tex: Katherine Ochsner, MD. Minneapolis, Minn: Charles Ostrov, MD. Charlottesville,
Va: Bruce Prum, MD. Boston, Mass: Joel Schuman,
MD. New Port Richey, Fla: Jeffrey Schwartz, MD. Mount Pleasant, SC: Elizabeth Sharpe, MD.South Plainfield, NJ: Franklin Spirn, MD. Iowa City,
Iowa: John Stamler, MD. San Francisco, Calif:
Robert Stamper, MD. Charleston, SC: William Stewart,
MD. San Antonio, Tex: Martha Walton, MD. Chicago, Ill: Jacob Wilenski, MD.
|
|
Corresponding author and reprints: Eve J. Higginbotham, MD, Department
of Ophthalmology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, 419 W Redwood St,
Suite 580, Baltimore, MD 21201 (e-mail: FCWEJH6786{at}aol.com).
From the Department of Ophthalmology, The University of Maryland School
of Medicine, Baltimore (Dr Higginbotham), and the Department of Ophthalmology
and Visual Sciences, The University of Texas–Houston Medical School
(Dr Feldman). Drs Stiles and Dubiner are in private practice in Kansas City,
Mo, and Morrow, Ga, respectively.
REFERENCES
| |
1. Quigley HA. Number of people with glaucoma worldwide. Br J Ophthalmol. 1996;80:389-393.
FREE FULL TEXT
2. The AGIS Investigators. The Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study (AGIS), 4: comparison of treatment
outcomes within race—seven year results. Ophthalmology. 1998;105:1146-1164.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
3. Collaborative Normal-Tension Glaucoma Study Group. The effectiveness of intraocular pressure reduction in the treatment
of normal-tension glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 1998;126:498-505.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
4. Kass MA, Gordon M, Morley RE Jr, Meltzer DW, Goldberg JJ. Compliance with topical timolol treatment. Am J Ophthalmol. 1987;103:188-193.
ISI
| PUBMED
5. Gurwitz JH, Glynn RJ, Monane M, Mack RJ, Lass JH. Treatment of glaucoma: adherence by the elderly. Am J Public Health. 1993;83:711-716.
FREE FULL TEXT
6. Alm A, Widengård I, Kjellgren D, et al. Latanoprost administered once daily caused a maintained reduction of
intraocular pressure in glaucoma patients treated concomitantly with timolol. Br J Ophthalmol. 1995;79:12-16.
FREE FULL TEXT
7. Rulo AH, Greve EL, Hoyng PF. Additive effect of latanoprost, a prostaglandin F2 analogue,
and timolol in patients with elevated intraocular pressure. Br J Ophthalmol. 1994;78:899-902.
FREE FULL TEXT
8. Diestelhorst M, Almegård B. Comparison of two fixed combinations of latanoprost and timolol in
open-angle glaucoma. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1998;236:577-581.
FULL TEXT
| PUBMED
9. Boger III WP. Short-term "escape" and long-term "drift": the dissipation effects
of the -adrenergic blocking agents. Surv Ophthalmol. 1983;28(suppl):235-242.
10. Alm A, Stjernshantz J and the Scandinavian Latanoprost Study Group. Effects on intraocular pressure and side effects of 0.005% latanoprost
applied once daily, evening or morning: a comparison with timolol. Ophthalmology. 1995;102:1743-1752.
ISI
| PUBMED
11. Camras CB, Wax MB, Ritch R, et al and the US Latanoprost Study Group. Latanoprost treatment for glaucoma: effects of treating for 1 year
and of switching from timolol. Am J Ophthalmol. 1998;126:390-399.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
12. Watson PG and the Latanoprost Study Group. Latanoprost: two years' experience of its use in the United Kingdom. Ophthalmology. 1998;105:82-87.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
13. McCannel CA, Heinrich SR, Brubaker RF. Acetazolamide but not timolol lowers aqueous humor flow in sleeping
humans. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1992;230:518-520.
ISI
| PUBMED
14. Hayreh SS, Podhajsky P, Zimmerman MB. Beta-blocker eyedrops and nocturnal arterial hypotension. Am J Ophthalmol. 1999;128:301-309.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
15. Lazarus HM, Imperia PS, Botti RE, et al. An in vitro method which assesses corneal epithelial toxicity due to
antineoplastic, preservative and antimicrobial agents. In: Lerman S, Tripathi RC, eds. Ocular Toxicology. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker Inc; 1988:59-85.
16. Camras C and the US Latanoprost Study Group. Comparison of latanoprost and timolol in patients with ocular hypertension
and glaucoma: a six-month masked, multicenter trial in the United States. Ophthalmology. 1996;103:138-147.
ISI
| PUBMED
17. Camras CB, Alm A, Watson P, Stjernschantz J and the Latanoprost Study Groups. Latanoprost, a prostaglandin analog, for glaucoma therapy: efficacy
and safety after one year of treatment in 198 patients. Ophthalmology. 1996;103:1916-1924.
ISI
| PUBMED
18. Watson P, Stjernschantz J and the Latanoprost Study Groups. A six-month, randomized, double-masked study comparing latanoprost
with timolol in open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Ophthalmology. 1996;103:126-137.
ISI
| PUBMED
19. Wand M. Latanoprost and hyperpigmentation of eyelashes. Arch Ophthalmol. 1997;115:1206-1208.
ISI
| PUBMED
20. Johnstone MA. Hypertrichosis and increased pigmentation of eyelashes and adjacent
hair in the region of the ipsilateral eyelids of patients treated with unilateral
topical latanoprost. Am J Ophthalmol. 1997;124:544-547.
ISI
| PUBMED
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
24-Hour Control With a Latanoprost-Timolol Fixed Combination vs Timolol Alone.
Konstas et al.
Arch Ophthalmol 2006;124:1553-1557.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Twice-Daily 0.2% Brimonidine-0.5% Timolol Fixed-Combination Therapy vs Monotherapy With Timolol or Brimonidine in Patients With Glaucoma or Ocular Hypertension: A 12-Month Randomized Trial.
Sherwood et al.
Arch Ophthalmol 2006;124:1230-1238.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Twenty-four-Hour Control With Latanoprost-Timolol-Fixed Combination Therapy vs Latanoprost Therapy
Konstas et al.
Arch Ophthalmol 2005;123:898-902.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Short term efficacy and safety in glaucoma patients changed to the latanoprost 0.005%/timolol maleate 0.5% fixed combination from monotherapies and adjunctive therapies
Hamacher et al.
Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2004;88:1295-1298.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
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
|
