Noninferiority of Preservative-free Versus BAK-preserved Latanoprost-timolol Fixed Combination Eye Drops in Patients With Open-angle Glaucoma or Ocular Hypertension.

PRéCIS:: Noninferiority of efficacy was demonstrated for a preservative-free latanoprost-timolol fixed combination compared with a BAK-containing formulation at 84 days after treatment in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the effect on intraocular pressure and safety of preservative-free latanoprost-timolol fixed combination (T2347) to benzalkonium chloride-preserved latanoprost-timolol fixed combination in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. METHODS: Phase III, randomized, parallel-group, investigator-masked study in 10 countries. A total of 242 patients aged 18 years or older with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension in both eyes controlled with a preserved latanoprost-timolol fixed combination (15.7±2.4 mm Hg overall before inclusion) were randomized at day 0 with no washout period to receive the preservative-free alternative T2347 (N=127) or remain on the preserved comparator (N=115) for 84 days. Intraocular pressure changes from day 0 were measured at 9:00 am (±1 hour) on day 42 and day 84, and noninferiority of T2347 to the preserved comparator was analyzed statistically at day 84. Safety parameters were also reported. RESULTS: The mean change in intraocular pressure from baseline to day 84 was -0.49±1.80 mm Hg for preservative-free T2347 and -0.49±2.25 mm Hg for the preserved comparator. These results met the noninferiority limits. Similar results were observed at day 42. There was no difference between groups in the incidence of adverse events or ocular signs. The total ocular symptoms score was better for T2347 than BPLT upon instillation at day 84 (45.9%/44.3%/9.8% of patients with improvement/no change/worsening vs. 33.6%/47.3%/19.1%; P=0.021), reflecting improvements in individual symptoms such as irritation/burning/stinging (P<0.001), and itching (P<0.01) on day 84. CONCLUSIONS: Preservative-free latanoprost-timolol fixed combination T2347 showed noninferior efficacy compared with the preserved comparator and was well tolerated.

Comparison of a travoprost BAK-free formulation preserved with polyquaternium-1 with BAK-preserved travoprost in ocular hypertension or open-angle glaucoma.

PURPOSE: To demonstrate that the intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering effect of travoprost 0.004% preserved with polyquaternium-1 (travoprost benzalkonium chloride [BAK]-free) is non-inferior to that of travoprost 0.004% preserved with benzalkonium chloride (travoprost BAK) in patients with ocular hypertension or open-angle glaucoma. METHODS: A total of 371 patients randomly received travoprost BAK-free (n=185) or travoprost BAK (n=186) dosed once daily in the evening for 3 months. Patients were evaluated at 9 am, 11 AM, and 4 PM at baseline, weeks 2 and 6, and month 3. Intraocular pressure was also evaluated 36 and 60 hours after the month 3 visit. RESULTS: Travoprost BAK-free is non-inferior to travoprost BAK. The 95% upper confidence limits for the difference in mean IOP at month 3 (primary efficacy) were 0.5 mmHg, 0.6 mmHg, and 0.5 mmHg, at 9 AM, 11 AM, and 4 PM, respectively. Mean IOP reductions from baseline ranged from 7.6 to 8.7 mmHg in the travoprost BAK-free group and from 7.7 to 9.2 mmHg in the travoprost BAK group. At 36 and 60 hours after the last dose, mean IOP remained 6.8 mmHg and 5.7 mmHg below baseline in the travoprost BAK-free group, vs 7.3 mmHg and 6.0 mmHg in the travoprost BAK group, respectively. The safety profile of travoprost BAK-free was similar to that of travoprost BAK. CONCLUSIONS: Travoprost BAK-free safely and effectively lowers IOP in eyes with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. This BAK-free formulation has comparable safety, efficacy, and duration of IOP-lowering effect to travoprost preserved with BAK. Travoprost BAK-free is an effective option for IOP reduction while avoiding BAK exposure.

Efficacy and safety of travoprost/timolol vs dorzolamide/timolol in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension.

PURPOSE: To compare the intraocular pressure- (IOP-) lowering efficacy of fixed combinations travoprost 0.004%/timolol 0.5% and dorzolamide 2%/timolol 0.5% in patients with ocular hypertension or open-angle glaucoma. METHODS: In this prospective, multicenter, double-masked, randomized clinical trial, 319 qualifying patients received either travoprost/timolol once daily in the morning (n = 157) or dorzolamide/timolol twice daily (n = 162). IOP was assessed morning and evening at 2 and 6 weeks. The primary outcome measure was mean diurnal IOP. RESULTS: Baseline mean IOP values were similar between groups. Mean pooled diurnal IOP was significantly lower in the travoprost/timolol group (16.5 mmHg +/- 0.23) than in the dorzolamide/timolol group (17.3 mmHg +/- 0.23; P = 0.011). Mean IOP was significantly lower in the travoprost/timolol group compared to the dorzolamide/timolol group at the 9 AM time point both at Week 2 (P = 0.006) and Week 6 (P = 0.002). The travoprost/timolol combination produced mean IOP reductions from baseline of 35.3% to 38.5%, while the dorzolamide/timolol combination produced mean IOP reductions from baseline of 32.5% to 34.5%. CONCLUSIONS: The fixed combination travoprost 0.004%/timolol 0.5% dosed once daily in the morning demonstrated superior mean diurnal IOP-lowering efficacy compared to dorzolamide 2%/timolol 0.5% dosed twice daily in patients with ocular hypertension or open-angle glaucoma.

The safety and efficacy of brinzolamide 1%/timolol 0.5% fixed combination versus dorzolamide 2%/timolol 0.5% in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension.

PURPOSE: This study compared the intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering efficacy of 2 fixed combination products, brinzolamide 1%/timolol 0.5% suspension (Azarga, Brinz/Tim) and dorzolamide 2%/timolol 0.5% solution (Dorz/Tim), in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension who required a change in therapy due to elevated IOP while receiving IOP-lowering medication. METHODS: This was a one-year, multicenter, randomized, double-masked, active-controlled, parallel-group trial of Brinz/Tim and Dorz/Tim. IOP assessments were taken at 8 and 10 AM at week 2 and months 3 and 9, and at 8 AM, 10 AM, and 4 PM at months 6 and 12. Primary efficacy was a noninferiority comparison of mean IOP at the three month 6 time points. RESULTS: Of the 437 patients enrolled, 220 dosed Brinz/Tim whereas 217 dosed Dorz/Tim twice daily. Brinz/Tim produced IOP-lowering efficacy comparable to Dorz/Tim, with the upper 95% confidence limits for the differences between groups within +1.5 mm Hg at all assessment times, including the month 6 primary efficacy time points, establishing noninferiority. Differences in means numerically favored Brinz/Tim at 9 of 12 study visits and times. The IOP reductions ranged from 7.2 to 9.2 mm Hg for Brinz/Tim and from 7.4 to 8.9 mm Hg for Dorz/Tim. Although a similar overall safety profile was observed between the 2 treatment groups, Brinz/Tim showed significantly less ocular irritation (2.7% vs. 10.6%; P=0.0009) than Dorz/Tim. CONCLUSIONS: Brinz/Tim suspension provides statistically significant and clinically relevant IOP-lowering efficacy that is noninferior to Dorz/Tim. Additionally, Brinz/Tim affords an ocular comfort advantage compared with Dorz/Tim.