Travoprost 0.004% with and without benzalkonium chloride: a comparison of safety and efficacy.

PURPOSE: To compare the safety and efficacy of travoprost 0.004% without benzalkonium chloride (BAC) to that of the marketed formulation of travoprost 0.004% in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. METHODS: The study was a double-masked, randomized, parallel group, multicenter, noninferiority design. Adult patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension with qualifying intraocular pressure (IOP) on 2 eligibility visits received either travoprost 0.004% with BAC (n=346), or travoprost 0.004% without BAC (n=344) dosed once-daily each evening. Patients were followed for a period of 3 months. IOP measurements at 8 AM, 10 AM, and 4 PM were taken at study visits on week 2, week 6, and month 3. RESULTS: Mean IOP reductions, across all 9 study visits and times ranged from 7.3 to 8.5 mm Hg for travoprost 0.004% without BAC and from 7.4 to 8.4 mm Hg for travoprost 0.004% with BAC. Statistical equivalence was also demonstrated for the comparison of mean IOP changes; 95% confidence limits were within +/-0.8 mm Hg at 9 of 9 study visits and times in both the per protocol and intent-to-treat data sets. Adverse events and the number of patients discontinued owing to adverse events were similar for both treatment groups. Adverse events due to hyperemia occurred in 6.4% and 9.0% of patients treated with travoprost 0.004% without BAC and travoprost 0.004% with BAC, respectively. CONCLUSION: Travoprost 0.004% without BAC is equivalent to travoprost 0.004% with BAC in both safety and efficacy.

Efficacy and safety of a fixed combination of travoprost 0.004%/timolol 0.5% ophthalmic solution once daily for open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of a fixed combination of travoprost 0.004%/timolol 0.5% every day in the morning with a concomitant regimen of timolol 0.5% every day in the morning, plus travoprost 0.004% every day in the evening; and timolol 0.5% twice daily on the intraocular pressure (IOP) of subjects with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension over 3 months. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-masked, parallel-group, active-controlled, multicenter trial. METHODS: Patients comprised adult subjects (n = 403) of either gender with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension in at least one eye. To qualify, the IOP had to be between 22 to 36 mm Hg in the same eye at two consecutive eligibility visits. The primary outcome variable was IOP measured with a Goldmann applanation tonometer. RESULTS: Mean IOP ranged from 16.2 to 17.4 mm Hg with the combination travoprost/timolol compared with 15.4 to 16.8 mm Hg in the concomitant travoprost + timolol group, from baselines of 23.1 to 25.6 mm Hg and 22.9 to 25.0 mm Hg, respectively. The fixed combination of travoprost/timolol significantly lowered IOP by 7 to 9 mm, similar to the IOP reductions observed with concomitant therapy. The most frequent ocular adverse event was hyperemia that occurred in 14.3% and 23.4% of subjects treated with travoprost/timolol combination and concomitant travoprost + timolol, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Travoprost/timolol combination produces greater IOP reductions than the positive control, timolol 0.5%, and reductions that were similar to concomitant travoprost + timolol. This study demonstrates that the fixed combination of travoprost/timolol produces significant and clinically relevant reductions of IOP in a once-daily dosing regimen.

Long anterior zonules and pigment dispersion.

PURPOSE: To describe pigment dispersion associated with long anterior zonules. DESIGN: Multicenter observational case series. METHODS: Fifteen patients, seven of whom were treated for glaucoma or ocular hypertension, were identified with long anterior zonules and pigment dispersion. Transmission electron microscopy was performed on one anterior capsule specimen. RESULTS: All patients had anterior zonules that inserted centrally on the lens capsule. Signs of pigment dispersion included corneal endothelial pigmentation, loss of the pupillary ruff, and variable trabecular meshwork pigmentation. Ultrasound biomicroscopy verified the lack of posterior iris insertion and concavity. There was no exfoliation material. Transmission electron microscopy showed zonular lamellae with adherent pigment granules, and no exfoliation material. CONCLUSIONS: Long anterior zonules inserted onto the central lens capsule may cause mechanical disruption of the pigment epithelium at the pupillary ruff and central iris leading to pigment dispersion.