Effects of timolol maleate, levobunolol and apraclonidine on intraocular pressure, pupil size, blood pressure and heart rate in beagles / Efeitos do maleato de timolol, do levobunolol e da apraclonidina sobre a pressão intraocular, o diâmetro pupilar, a pressão sanguínea e a frequência cardíaca, em cães da raça Beagle

The aim of this study was to evaluate changes in intraocular pressure (IOP), pupil size (PS), blood pressure (BP), heart rate (HR), and ECG variables (Pms wave PmV, PR interval, QRS complex, RMV wave and QT intervals) over time during the instillation of 0.5% timolol, 0.5% levobunolol and 0.5% apraclonidine in clinically normal dogs. Ten adult beagles were used. Baseline values were measured at 8a.m., 2p.m. and 8p.m., for three consecutive days. A waiting period of 10 days between the administrations of each drug was established. For 15 consecutive days, the drug being tested was instilled in one eye of each dog twice a day (7a.m. and 7p.m.). The parameters were evaluated at the aforementioned times on days 3, 6, 9, 12 and 15. Data were statistically compared using the Bonferroni test and one-way repeated measures analysis of variance (P<0.05). The Pearson test was used to evaluate any correlation between QT interval, HR and BP. The tested drugs did not find a decrease in IOP. A significant decreased in PS was observed in almost all dogs following levobunolol administration, relative to the control eye. A significant decrease in HR was observed on day 3 following levobunolol treatment, while apraclonidine induced an increase on day 15. Blood pressure was reduced in all measurement time points following apraclonidine treatment. A negative correlation between QT interval and HR was only observed in dogs treated with timolol. In conclusion, levobunolol was the only drug that induced significant alterations in PS. Apraclonidine was the only drug that induced systemic hypotension. Timolol was the only drug to that induced a negative correlation between QT and HR.(AU)

O objetivo deste estudo foi avaliar as mudanças na pressão intraocular (PIO), no diâmetro pupilar (DP), na pressão sanguínea (PS), na frequência cardíaca (FC) e nas variáveis eletrocardiográficas (onda Pms, PmV, intervalo PR, complexo QRS, onda RmV e intervalo QT), ao longo do tempo da instilação do timolol 0,5%, do levobunolol 0,5% e da apraclonidina 0,5% em cães clinicamente normais. Dez Beagles adultos compuseram o estudo. Valores basais foram mensurados às oito,, 14 e 20 horas, durante três dias consecutivos. Foi instituído um período de espera de 10 dias entre a administração de cada fármaco. Durante 15 dias consecutivos, um olho de cada animal recebeu uma gota de cada um deles, a intervalos de 12 horas (às sete e às 19 horas). Os parâmetros foram avaliados nos momentos acima referidos, nos dias três, seis, nove, 12 e 15. Os dados foram comparados estatisticamente empregando-se o teste de Bonferroni após análise de variância para medidas repetidas (P<0,05). Teste de Pearson foi utilizado para correlação entre o intervalo QT com a FC e a PS. Não se encontrou diminuição da PIO. Observou-se redução significativa do DP na quase totalidade dos animais que receberam levobunol, relativamente ao olho controle. Diminuição significativa da FC foi vista ao terceiro dia após a administração do levobunolol, enquanto apraclonidina induziu aumento no 15º dia. A pressão arterial foi reduzida em todos os momentos com a apraclonidina. Observou-se correlação negativa entre o intervalo QT e a FC apenas nos indivíduos tratados com o timolol. Em conclusão, levobunolol foi o único fármaco que induziu alterações significativas no DP. A apraclonidina foi o único fármaco que induziu hipotensão sistêmica significativa. O timolol foi o único a ensejar correlação negativa entre o intervalo QT e a FC.(AU)

Bradyarrhythmias secondary to topical levobunolol hydrochloride solution.

An 88-year-old man was admitted with fatigue, dizziness, and heart palpitations. Both the electrocardiogram and Holter confirmed the existence of sinus bradycardia and sinus arrest. One hour prior to the onset of symptoms, he received levobunolol hydrochloride solution topically. The levobunolol hydrochloride solution was discontinued and the bradycardia resolved. He was diagnosed as having intermittent sinus bradycardia and sinus arrest, induced by topical ß-blocker therapy. Levobunolol hydrochloride solution is an effective therapy for ocular hypertension, probably by reducing aqueous fluid production. However, it can induce cardiac side effects such as bradyarrhythmia and should be used with caution in elderly patients or patients with cardiac disease.

Effects of topical levobunolol or fixed combination of dorzolamide-timolol or association of dorzolamide-levobunolol on intraocular pressure, pupil size, and heart rate in healthy cats / Efeitos da aplicação tópica do levobunolol, da combinação fixa de dorzolamidatimolol ou da associação de dorzolamida com levobunolol sobre a pressão intra-ocular, o diâmetro pupilar e a freqüência cardíaca em gatos saudáveis

The effects of topical levobunolol with the fixed combination of 2 percent dorzolamide-0.5 percent timolol and the association of 2 percent dorzolamide with 0.5 percent levobunolol on intraocular pressure (IOP), pupil size (PS), heart rate (HR), and conjunctival hyperemia in eighteen halthy cats were investigated and compared. IOP, PS, HR, and conjuntival hyperemia were daily recorded at three times (9a.m., 2p.m., and 6p.m.). Three groups were formed (n=6), and one eye of each animal was randomly selected and treated with topical levobunolol (L), or commercial combination of dorzolamide-timolol (DT), or the association of dorzolamide with levobunolol (DL). The first day (0) consisted of recording of baseline values. On the next four consecutive days, drugs were instilled at 8a.m. and 8p.m. and measurements were taken at the same times fore cited. Comparing with the baseline values, all evaluated parameters significantly decreased (P<0.001). Conjuntival hyperemia was not seen. Levobunolol significantly declined IOP, PS, and HR in normal cats, and showed a stronger effect in lowering HR, when compared to dorzolamide-timolol effect. No synergistic effect in IOP declining was noted when levobunolol dorzolamide was added to levobunolol.

Estudaram-se e compararam-se os efeitos do levobunolol, da combinação fixa de dorzolamida 2 por cento-timolol 0,5 por cento e da associação de dorzolamida 2 por cento com levobunolol 0,5 por cento sobre a pressão intra-ocular (PIO), o diâmetro pupilar (DP), a freqüência cardíaca (FC) e a hiperemia conjuntival em 18 gatos saudáveis. PIO, DP, FC e hiperemia conjuntival foram aferidos diariamente, em três horários distintos (9h, 14h e 18h). Três grupos foram formados (n=6) e um olho de cada animal recebeu, aleatoriamente, uma gota de levobunolol (L), ou a combinação comercial à base de dorzolamida-timolol (DT), ou a associação de dorzolamida com levobunolol (DL). Parâmetros basais foram aferidos no primeiro dia (dia 0). Nos quatro dias consecutivos, os fármacos foram instilados às 8h e 20h e os parâmetros aferidos nos mesmos horários. Todos os parâmetros decresceram significativamente em relação aos valores basais (P<0,001) e não se observou hiperemia conjuntival. O levobunolol reduziu significativamente a PIO, o DP e a FC e o foi o fármaco que mais reduziu a FC. Não se observou efeito sinérgico na redução da PIO quando a dorzolamida foi adicionada ao levobulol.

Comparison of the effects of topical levobunolol and timolol solution on the human ocular surface.

PURPOSE: To compare the effects of levobunolol hydrochloride and timolol maleate on tear volume, precorneal tear film stability, and corneal epithelial barrier function in normal human eyes. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The study population consisted of 14 healthy volunteers. To obtain pretreatment baseline values, we determined the radius of the tear meniscus (RTM) by meniscometry; the noninvasive breakup time (NIBUT) of the precorneal tear film with a tear specular microscope; and corneal fluorescein uptake with a fluorophotometer. Levobunolol hydrochloride (0.5%) or timolol maleate solution (0.5%) was instilled twice daily for 4 weeks into 1 eye; the contralateral eye was treated with the other topical drug twice daily for the same period. At the end of the study period, the same tests were performed, and the pre- and posttreatment results were compared. RESULTS: Timolol solution did, and levobunolol did not, significantly reduce NIBUT from the baseline values. RTM was significantly decreased by treatment with either timolol or levobunolol solution. Corneal fluorescein uptake was not significantly changed, although it was higher after treatment with both topical drugs. CONCLUSIONS: Four-week treatment with timolol solution resulted in significant instability of the precorneal tear film. Both timolol and levobunolol solution significantly decreased tear volume on the ocular surface. These results indicate that levobunolol solution applied twice daily has equal effects on the tear volume and corneal epithelial barrier function as does timolol solution applied twice daily and that it affects precorneal tear film stability less than timolol solution.

A comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of 0.5% timolol maleate ophthalmic gel-forming solution QD and 0.5% levobunolol hydrochloride BID in patients with ocular hypertension or open-angle glaucoma.

The purpose of this study was to compare the ocular hypotensive efficacy and tolerability of 0.5% timolol maleate ophthalmic gel-forming solution (timolol gel) and 0.5% levobunolol hydrochloride (levobunolol). This was a randomized, double-masked, multi-center, active-controlled, 2-period, crossover study. After a 3-week, single-masked placebo run-in phase, patients with ocular hypertension or open-angle glaucoma and an intraocular pressure (IOP) > or = 22 mmHg were randomized to receive timolol gel QD or levobunolol BID for 6 weeks followed by a 3-week, placebo washout period. Patients were then crossed over to the alternate treatment for 6 weeks. IOP and heart rate (HR) were measured at 3 and 6 weeks after the start of therapy with either timolol gel or levobunolol. Of 133 patients randomized, 116 received both treatments. Timolol gel QD was comparable to levobunolol BID in reducing trough and peak IOP. At trough, HR was marginally increased with timolol gel and was decreased with levobunolol (p = < 0.001). At peak, HR was decreased with both treatments, but the decrease was significantly less with timolol gel than with levobunolol (p = 0.049). Significantly more patients experienced at least one adverse event (p = 0.024), adverse events related to special senses (p = 0.002), and burning and stinging (p < 0.001) with levobunolol compared to timolol gel. The study demonstrates that timolol gel QD has IOP-lowering effects comparable to those of levobunolol BID with fewer adverse experiences and less effect on HR.

Allergic reactions to brimonidine in patients treated for glaucoma.

BACKGROUND: Allergic reactions to ophthalmic drugs have not been studied extensively in ophthalmology. We performed a study to estimate the incidence of allergy to brimonidine in patients treated for glaucoma. METHODS: We identified all patients in a private glaucoma practice who started therapy with brimonidine between Mar. 19, 1998, and Aug. 14, 1999. We recorded the patient's diagnosis, age, sex, concomitant glaucoma medication, previous allergy to glaucoma medication and allergy to brimonidine. Allergy was defined as allergic contact dermatoconjunctivitis or follicular conjunctivitis. RESULTS: Of the 140 patients identified, 36 (25.7%) had had an allergic reaction to brimonidine. Contact dermatoconjunctivitis was noted in 19 patients (52.8%) and follicular conjunctivitis in 18 (50.0%). The rate of development of those two manifestations was linear and almost parallel throughout the study period. In logistic regression analysis previous allergy to a topically given antiglaucoma medication (t = -5.13) and concurrent use of levobunolol (t = 3.46) were retained as the most probable predictor variables of allergy to brimonidine. Life-table analysis showed a fairly linear curve, with no peak in allergy rate. Allergic reactions occurred throughout the year, with a small peak in March. INTERPRETATION: We found a rate of allergy to brimonidine of 25.7%. Concomitant levobunolol use and allergy to another glaucoma medication were associated with a higher allergy rate.

Cardiovascular considerations in using topical, oral, and intravenous drugs for the treatment of glaucoma and ocular hypertension: focus on beta-adrenergic blockade.

Glaucoma and ocular hypertension are highly prevalent conditions in individuals over the age of 40 and are commonly seen together in patients with cardiovascular disease. Many of the antiglaucoma medications, when systemically absorbed, affect the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems of patients and can cause cardiovascular toxicity. Such adverse effects are frequently associated with the long-term use of potentially toxic agents in elderly people, who are most prone to chronic eye disease. Moreover, patients may not associate their symptoms with the topical eye medications, and consequently may not report adverse drug effects. Drug-drug interactions can also occur when patients are taking medications for both cardiovascular disease and glaucoma. This review focuses on beta-adrenergic blockers as topical antiglaucoma medications and other topical antiglaucoma drugs. The systemic toxicity of these agents is reviewed, along with the possible drug interactions. Brief mention is also made of other antiglaucoma medications used alone and in combination with topical beta-blockers.

[Contact allergy to eyedrops containing beta-blockers]. / Contactallergie voor oogdruppels met beta-blokkers.

In six patients (4 women aged 80, 62, 43 and 52 years and 2 men aged 58 and 51 years), who used eyedrops containing beta-blockers for the treatment of glaucoma, allergic contact dermatitis of the eyelids was diagnosed. Three were allergic to metipranolol, 2 to levobunolol and 1 to timolol. In literature, less than 50 cases of hypersensitivity to beta-blockers in eye medication have been reported. There are, however, reasons to assume that sensitization is more frequent: (a) not all patients are referred by the ophthalmologist to the dermatologist; (b) false-negative reactions to patch tests with the commercial preparations and with beta-blockers are not infrequent; (c) they are not routinely tested because beta-blockers are difficult to obtain in pure form; (d) cross-reactions with other beta-blockers are infrequent, and changing to another preparation therefore usually solves the clinical problem. Nevertheless it is advisable to test a battery of beta-blockers (befunolol, levobunolol, metipranolol, timolol) in allergic patients. A test preparation of 2% in water or 3%-10% in petrolatum may be suitable. Control testing in non-exposed individuals is necessary to exclude irritation reactions.

Efficacy and tolerability of 0.5% timolol maleate ophthalmic gel-forming solution QD compared with 0.5% levobunolol hydrochloride BID in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension.

We compared the efficacy of timolol maleate ophthalmic gel-forming solution 0.5% QD with that of levobunolol hydrochloride 0.5% BID, as measured by change in intraocular pressure (IOP), effect on heart rate, and ocular tolerability. The study had a positive-controlled, double-masked, randomized, multicenter, 12-week, two-period (6 weeks each), crossover design. One hundred fifty-two patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension were randomized to receive either timolol maleate gel-forming solution QD or levobunolol BID for 6 weeks, followed by a crossover to the alternate treatment. IOP and heart rate were measured at morning trough and peak during weeks 3, 6, 9, and 12. Timolol maleate gel-forming solution QD was comparable to levobunolol BID in reducing IOP at peak and trough. Although the effects on peak heart rate were similar between the two medications, the effect on trough heart rate of timolol maleate gel-forming solution QD was significantly less than that of levobunolol BID (P = 0.001). The incidence of ocular burning and stinging was comparable between the two treatments. Patients experienced significantly more blurred vision when using timolol maleate gel-forming solution than when using levobunolol (P = 0.013). Overall, more patients experienced at least one adverse event when using timolol maleate gel-forming solution. Timolol maleate gel-forming solution QD is as efficacious in reducing IOP as levobunolol BID.