A 90-day study of the efficacy and side effects of 0.25% and 0.5% apraclonidine vs 0.5% timolol. Apraclonidine Primary Therapy Study Group.

OBJECTIVE: To compare long-term intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering efficacy of 0.25% and 0.5% apraclonidine hydrochloride with 0.5% timolol maleate. DESIGN: Multicenter, randomized, double-masked trial. Adult patients of either sex diagnosed as having open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension were enrolled following appropriate washout from all ocular hypotensive medications. Morning IOPs of 22 to 35 mm Hg were required for entry. Patients received 0.25% or 0.5% apraclonidine 3 times a day or 0.5% timolol twice a day for 90 days. Intraocular pressure was measured at 8 AM (before morning dosing) and at 4 PM (8 hours after dosing) on days 1, 30, and 90, and only at 8 AM on day 14. RESULTS: All 3 medications significantly reduced IOP from baseline at all observation times (P < .001): 0.5% apraclonidine reduced IOP more than 0.25% apraclonidine; no significant difference was observed between 0.5% apraclonidine and 0.5% timolol 8 hours after dosing on days 1, 30, and 90; and a significant difference (P < .05) in favour of 0.5% timolol over 0.25% apraclonidine was observed 8 hours after dosing on day 30. At all morning visits following evening dosing, 0.5% timolol significantly reduced IOP more than both concentrations of apraclonidine. CONCLUSIONS: Both 0.25% and 0.5% apraclonidine significantly reduce IOP when used as primary ocular hypotensive medication. Although 0.25% and 0.5% apraclonidine reduce IOP to a similar degree as 0.5% timolol 8 hours after morning dosing, neither concentration is as effective for reducing morning IOP after evening dosing.

Comparison of the ocular hypotensive lipid AGN 192024 with timolol: dosing, efficacy, and safety evaluation of a novel compound for glaucoma management.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and efficacy of the ocular hypotensive lipid AGN 192024 (Lumigan) with those of timolol. METHODS: A 30-day, randomized, investigator-masked, clinical trial involving 100 patients with elevated intraocular pressure (IOP). Study medications were instilled topically. Doses of 0.003%, 0.01%, or 0.03% AGN 192024 were given once daily for 3 weeks then twice daily for 1 week, and vehicle control or 0.5% timolol was given twice daily for 4 weeks. Mean change in IOP from baseline was the primary efficacy variable. Safety parameters included adverse events, hyperemia grading, laser flare meter analysis, heart rate, and blood pressure. RESULTS: Timolol and all 3 concentrations of AGN 192024 lowered IOP from baseline (P < .001). A dosage of 0.03% AGN 192024 once daily lowered IOP significantly more than timolol (P < or = .02) at every study visit except day 21 (P = .053) and provided better diurnal IOP control. Twice-daily dosing of AGN 192024 provided no clinically significant benefit over once-daily dosing. All treatment regimens were safe and well tolerated, with no clinically significant effects on heart rate or blood pressure and no between-group differences in the incidence of adverse events. The only significant ocular safety finding with AGN 192024 was a dose-related mild increase in conjunctival hyperemia. CONCLUSIONS: Of the 3 concentrations tested, 0.03% AGN 192024 once daily had the best therapeutic profile. AGN 192024 was safe and well tolerated, and it provided superior ocular hypotensive efficacy and diurnal IOP control compared with timolol in patients with ocular hypertension and glaucoma.

Dorzolamide versus pilocarpine as adjunctive therapies to timolol: a comparison of patient preference and impact on daily life.

The purpose of this study was to compare 2% dorzolamide three times daily with 2% pilocarpine four times daily to determine patient preference, tolerability, and impact on daily life in patients concurrently receiving 0.5% timolol twice daily for treatment of elevated intraocular pressure (IOP). Seventy-five patients were enrolled in this 4-week, randomized, two-period, crossover study. The Comparison of Ophthalmic Medications for Tolerability questionnaire was used to assess patient preference and perception of side effects and activity limitations resulting from the study medications. IOP measurements were obtained 2 hours after drops were instilled and visual field tests were performed at baseline and at the end of each crossover period. Significantly more patients receiving pilocarpine than dorzolamide reported adverse experiences and discontinued the drug because of these adverse experiences. Similarly, patients reported more interference with their daily life because of side effects and activity limitations when receiving pilocarpine. Vision difficulties, accommodation difficulties, and brow ache were reported more often and were considered more bothersome by patients receiving pilocarpine. Bitter/unusual taste was reported more frequently and was considered more bothersome by patients receiving dorzolamide. Patients also reported missing fewer doses and were more satisfied with their medication when receiving dorzolamide. All of these changes were considered statistically significant. IOP control was not significantly different with either dorzolamide or pilocarpine. However, patients experienced a significant worsening of the mean defect of automated visual field examinations when receiving pilocarpine. At the end of the study, among patients with a preference, dorzolamide was preferred to pilocarpine by a ratio of more than 9:1. Overall, 81.9% of patients preferred dorzolamide. Thus dorzolamide demonstrated better tolerability and less adverse impact on daily life than pilocarpine.

A double-masked three-month comparison between 0.25% betaxolol suspension and 0.5% betaxolol ophthalmic solution.

In 352 patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension, a multicenter double-masked, parallel-group clinical study compared the effects on intraocular pressure and ocular comfort of 0.5% betaxolol ophthalmic solution, a cardioselective beta-adrenergic blocking agent, with 0.25% betaxolol suspension. With twice-daily dosages, baseline intraocular pressure was significantly reduced (P = .0005), with no significant difference between the two groups, at Week 2 and at Months 1, 2, and 3. Further, the prevalence of ocular discomfort upon topical instillation was significantly lower for 0.25% betaxolol suspension than for 0.5% betaxolol solution (P = .0005).

Effects of carteolol and timolol on plasma lipid profiles in older women with ocular hypertension or primary open-angle glaucoma.

PURPOSE: To determine the effect on serum lipid levels of carteolol hydrochloride 1.0% or timolol maleate 0.5% given twice a day to women age 60 years and older with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. METHOD: We included 112 patients in this double-masked, randomized, multicenter trial. Fasting clinical laboratory studies were evaluated at baseline and at 12 weeks. Patients were instructed not to change their dietary, alcohol consumption, or exercise habits during the study. RESULTS: For the carteolol group, the high-density lipoprotein (HDL) and total cholesterol/high-density lipoprotein (TC/HDL) ratio at baseline of 50.1 +/- 1.5 mg/dl and 4.7 +/- 0.2 changed by the 12-week visit to 51.3 +/- 1.9 mg/dl (P = .25) and 4.6 +/- .02 (P = .47), respectively. For the timolol maleate group, the baseline HDL and TC/HDL ratio of 53.6 +/- 2.2 mg/dl and 4.4 +/- 0.2 changed to 50.2 +/- 1.9 mg/dl (P < .001) and 4.7 +/- 0.2 (P = .001), respectively, at the 12-week visit. Carteolol patients showed no significant change from baseline, whereas the HDL (P < .001) and TC/HDL ratio decreased (P = .001) significantly in the timolol maleate group. There also was a significant difference in the change from baseline at 12 weeks between carteolol and timolol maleate groups for the HDL and TC/HDL ratio (P = .01 and .012, respectively). No differences in TC, low-density lipoprotein (LDL), or triglycerides (TG) or in changes from baseline were observed between groups at 12 weeks (P > .05). At 12 weeks, no differences were observed between carteolol and timolol maleate groups in intraocular pressure or safety (P > .05), except that patients given carteolol demonstrated fewer solicited ocular symptoms (P = .007). CONCLUSIONS: Carteolol appears to be neutral in its effect on serum lipid levels, whereas timolol maleate adversely affects the HDL and TC/HDL ratio in women age 60 years and older with ocular hypertension or primary open-angle glaucoma.

Pilot trial of cyclosporine 1% ophthalmic ointment in the treatment of keratoconjunctivitis sicca.

This trial was a randomized, double-masked, crossover study during which patients with keratoconjunctivitis sicca underwent 6 weeks of treatment with either cyclosporine 1% ophthalmic ointment or placebo followed by 6 weeks of the alternative treatment. Washout periods using only unpreserved artificial tears preceded both treatment cycles. Twenty-five patients completed the first treatment period, but only eight met entry criteria for period II. Cyclosporine ointment was associated with initial mild to moderate redness, itching, and burning that returned to baseline levels within 1-2 weeks. Rose Bengal results and results of four subjective (patient diary) efficacy parameters favored cyclosporine: foreign body sensation, overall symptoms, hours of symptom control per day, and overall effectiveness. No systemic adverse events or laboratory abnormalities occurred. We conclude that (a) the crossover design is inappropriate for studying this disease; (b) mild to moderate itching, redness, and burning occur initially with cyclosporine administration, although tolerance quickly develops; (c) cyclosporine appears to benefit the ocular surface in keratoconjunctivitis sicca; and (d) further trials in this syndrome are warranted.

Comparison of quality of life and patient preference of dorzolamide and pilocarpine as adjunctive therapy to timolol in the treatment of glaucoma.

PURPOSE: This article compares 2% dorzolamide (given twice daily) and 2% pilocarpine (given four times a day) for quality of life and preference in patients concurrently receiving 0.5% timolol (given twice daily) for elevated intraocular pressure (IOP). METHODS: This was a 4 week, randomized, two-period crossover study, involving 92 patients with elevated intraocular pressures suitable for adjunctive therapy. The Comparison of Ophthalmic Medications for Quality of Life questionaire was used to assess patient preference and self-reported quality of life. IOP measurements were obtained 2 h after drop instillation at the end of each crossover period. RESULTS: Overall, patients reported less interference in self-reported quality of life while receiving dorzolamide than while receiving pilocarpine, particularly with regard to limitations in their ability to drive, read, and perform moderate activities; and the bothersomeness of ocular side effects (p < 0.05). In addition, patients reported missing fewer doses of medication when receiving dorzolamide rather than pilocarpine. There was no difference in bothersomeness of bitter/unusual taste between the treatment groups despite a greater frequency reported by patients while receiving dorzolamide. In this study, dorzolamide and pilocarpine were equally effective in lowering intraocular pressure. There was no difference between the two treatments in the clinical examinations of patients throughout the study. However, patients experienced a significant worsening of mean defect of automated visual field examinations when receiving pilocarpine. CONCLUSION: At the end of the study, patients preferred dorzolamide to pilocarpine by a ratio of >7:1. Dorzolamide demonstrated less interference in self-reported quality of life than pilocarpine when compared as adjuctive therapy to timolol in the treatment of open-angle glaucoma.

The efficacy and safety of dorzolamide as adjunctive therapy to timolol maleate gellan solution in patients with elevated intraocular pressure. Additivity Study Group.

PURPOSE: Two parallel, randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled studies were conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of 2% dorzolamide hydrochloride as adjunctive therapy to 0.5% timolol maleate ophthalmic gellan (gel-forming) solution in patients with elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) that was inadequately controlled with 0.5% timolol maleate gellan solution alone. METHODS: Both studies began with an open-label 2-week run-in period on 0.5% timolol maleate gellan solution once a day. The only variation in method between the two studies was the dosage of 2% dorzolamide. In one study, 202 patients received 0.5% timolol maleate gellan solution once daily plus either 2% dorzolamide or placebo three times daily. In the other study, 181 patients received 0.5% timolol maleate gellan solution once daily plus either 2% dorzolamide or placebo twice daily. RESULTS: After 85 days, additional mean percent reductions in IOP from baseline at morning trough for the groups receiving 2% dorzolamide three times daily and placebo three times daily were 12.5% and 8.4%, respectively. Mean percent reductions for the groups receiving 2% dorzolamide twice daily and placebo twice daily were 13.1% and 6.5%, respectively. Burning and/or stinging on instillation were the only adverse experiences that affected significantly more of the patients receiving 2% dorzolamide twice or three times daily than those receiving placebo. CONCLUSION: When administered concomitantly with 0.5% timolol maleate gellan solution, 2% dorzolamide three times daily or twice daily produced a statistically significant reduction in IOP at morning trough and peak and was generally well tolerated.

Safety and efficacy of loteprednol etabonate for treatment of papillae in contact lens-associated giant papillary conjunctivitis.

Loteprednol etabonate (LE) is a new corticosteroid based on the "soft drug" concept. Contact lens-associated giant papillary conjunctivitis (GPC) was studied as a model for the anti-inflammatory effect of LE. Patients with bilateral GPC were enrolled in a multicenter, randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled, parallel group comparison of loteprednol etabonate 0.5% ophthalmic suspension and the LE vehicle (placebo). Patients were instructed to instill 1 drop of the test medication into each eye 4 times daily for 4 weeks, and follow-up examinations occurred on Days 2 or 3, 7, 14, 21, and 28 of masked therapy. Of 113 patients enrolled, 110 patients (LE = 55; placebo = 55) completed the study as planned. Patients receiving LE demonstrated significant reduction in the primary ocular signs of GPC (papillae, p < 0.001) and were rated better in the Investigator's Global Assessment (p = 0.017). LE did not elevate intraocular pressure during the study, and ratings for bulbar conjunctival injection and the Patient Opinion Assessment demonstrated statistical trends that favored treatment with LE. LE was well tolerated and was clinically effective for the treatment of GPC.

Safety and efficacy of diclofenac sodium 0.1% ophthalmic solution in acute seasonal allergic conjunctivitis.

A randomized clinical trial was conducted to compare diclofenac sodium 0.1% ophthalmic solution to placebo in relieving ocular signs and symptoms in patients with acute seasonal allergic conjunctivitis. Twenty patients (10 per treatment) qualified for this two week, double-masked study with moderate itching, bulbar conjunctival injection and a positive skin test. Diclofenac was statistically and clinically superior in the physician's global evaluation (p = 0.03) and the primary composite score [itching + bulbar/palpebral conjunctival injection (p = 0.037)] after two weeks of treatment. Four patients experienced some transient ocular burning/stinging with diclofenac. Diclofenac sodium appears to be effective for relieving the ocular signs and symptoms associated with acute seasonal allergic conjunctivitis.

A multicenter comparison of the ocular efficacy and safety of diclofenac 0.1% solution with that of ketorolac 0.5% solution in patients with acute seasonal allergic conjunctivitis.

Only one of several available ophthalmic nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is currently FDA approved for use in acute seasonal allergic conjunctivitis (SAC). Sixty patients with SAC and moderate itching and bulbar conjunctival injection were enrolled in a multicenter, randomized, double-masked, parallel-group trial comparing diclofenac sodium (DS) with ketorolac tromethamine (KT). Patients instilled 1 drop four times daily while awake for 14 days. Ocular signs and symptoms were evaluated at one and two weeks. The primary efficacy variables were itching and bulbar conjunctival injection. For both treatments, the ocular allergy sign and symptom scores were comparable at baseline. Both treatments evaluated in this study were well tolerated. Significant clinical and statistical reductions from baseline were observed in the primary efficacy variables. Treatment group differences were observed for the pain/soreness score with an advantage observed for the DS group at 30 minutes and at day 7. Our conclusion is that diclofenac sodium and ketorolac tromethamine acted similarly to reduce the ocular signs and symptoms associated with acute seasonal allergic conjunctivitis. There was a statistically significant advantage for the DS group to be free of symptoms at the day 7 visit as compared to the KT group (20.7% vs. 3.2%).