A randomized trial comparing the dorzolamide-timolol combination given twice daily to monotherapy with timolol and dorzolamide.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of a fixed combination of 2.0% dorzolamide and 0.5% timolol administered twice daily with each of the individual components administered in their usual monotherapy dose regimens in patients who had washed out all ocular hypotensive medications. DESIGN: A 3-month, parallel, randomized, double-masked, active-controlled, multicenter clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 335 patients with bilateral ocular hypertension or open-angle glaucoma participated. INTERVENTION: After completing a washout of ocular hypotensive medications, patients were randomized to receive either the dorzolamide-timolol combination twice daily plus placebo once daily, 0.5% timolol twice daily plus placebo once daily, or 2.0% dorzolamide three times daily. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Intraocular pressure (IOP) was measured at morning trough (hour 0) and peak (2 hours postdose) on day 1, week 2, and months 1, 2, and 3. Ocular and systemic safety were evaluated at each study visit. RESULTS: Intraocular pressure reduction was greater on average in the combination group than in the dorzolamide and timolol groups. At morning trough (month 3, hour 0), the mean reduction in IOP from baseline was 27.4% (-7.7 mmHg) for the combination, 15.5% (-4.6 mmHg) for dorzolamide, and 22.2% (-6.4 mmHg) for timolol. At morning peak (month 3, hour 2), the mean IOP reduction from baseline was 32.7% (-9.0 mmHg), 19.8% (-5.4 mmHg), and 22.6% (-6.3 mmHg) for the combination, dorzolamide, and timolol, respectively. Overall, the incidence of clinical adverse experiences was comparable between the combination and each of its components. The proportion of patients who discontinued from the study because of clinical adverse experiences was also comparable between the combination and dorzolamide, although it was significantly greater in the combination group than in the timolol group (7% vs. 1%, P = 0.035). Similarly, comparable numbers of patients in the combination and dorzolamide groups reported ocular symptoms; however, when compared to the timolol group, more patients receiving the combination reported blurred vision, burning eye, stinging eye, and tearing eye. CONCLUSIONS: After a washout of ocular hypotensive therapy, the IOP-lowering effect of the dorzolamide-timolol combination was greater than that of either of its components administered as monotherapy. The combination is generally well-tolerated and provides a convenient alternative to concomitant therapy with its individual components.

A randomized trial in patients inadequately controlled with timolol alone comparing the dorzolamide-timolol combination to monotherapy with timolol or dorzolamide.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the dorzolamide-timolol fixed combination twice daily to its components, timolol maleate and dorzolamide hydrochloride, given in their usual monotherapy regimens in patients whose intraocular pressure (IOP) was not controlled on timolol twice daily alone. DESIGN: Parallel, randomized, double-masked, and active-controlled study. PARTICIPANTS: Enrolled were 253 patients from 22 sites throughout the United States. INTERVENTION: After a 3-week run-in of timolol (TIMOPTIC; Merck & Co., Inc., Whitehouse Station, NJ) twice daily, eligible patients received either the combination (COSOPT; Merck & Co., Inc., Whitehouse Station, NJ) twice daily (plus placebo to ensure masking), timolol twice daily (plus placebo to ensure masking), or dorzolamide (TRUSOPT; Merck & Co. Inc., Whitehouse Station, NJ) three times daily for 3 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Intraocular pressure taken at hours 0 (trough) and 2 (peak) after week 2 and months 1, 2, and 3 was compared to baseline within each treatment group and between the combination and each component group. The safety profile of the combination was compared to each component. RESULTS: The combination was numerically superior at all study timepoints and was statistically superior at all timepoints except for month 2, hour 0 for timolol, and month 2, hour 2 for dorzolamide. The safety profile of the combination reflected those of its two components. The number of patients reporting ocular or local adverse experiences was greater for the combination (45%) and dorzolamide (45%) than for timolol (27%), with burning and/or stinging eye being the most frequently reported. CONCLUSION: The dorzolamide-timolol combination provides additional IOP lowering compared to either of its individual components and generally is well-tolerated.

A randomized trial comparing the dorzolamide-timolol combination given twice daily to monotherapy with timolol and dorzolamide. Dorzolamide-Timolol Study Group.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of a fixed combination of 2.0% dorzolamide and 0.5% timolol administered twice daily with each of the individual components administered in their usual monotherapy dose regimens in patients who had washed out all ocular hypotensive medications. DESIGN: A 3-month, parallel, randomized, double-masked, active-controlled, multicenter clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 335 patients with bilateral ocular hypertension or open-angle glaucoma participated. INTERVENTION: After completing a washout of ocular hypotensive medications, patients were randomized to receive either the dorzolamide-timolol combination twice daily plus placebo once daily, 0.5% timolol twice daily plus placebo once daily, or 2.0% dorzolamide three times daily. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Intraocular pressure (IOP) was measured at morning trough (hour 0) and peak (2 hours postdose) on day 1, week 2, and months 1, 2, and 3. Ocular and systemic safety were evaluated at each study visit. RESULTS: Intraocular pressure reduction was greater on average in the combination group than in the dorzolamide and timolol groups. At morning trough (month 3, hour 0), the mean reduction in IOP from baseline was 27.4% (-7.7 mmHg) for the combination, 15.5% (-4.6 mmHg) for dorzolamide, and 22.2% (-6.4 mmHg) for timolol. At morning peak (month 3, hour 2), the mean IOP reduction from baseline was 32.7% (-9.0 mmHg), 19.8% (-5.4 mmHg), and 22.6% (-6.3 mmHg) for the combination, dorzolamide, and timolol, respectively. Overall, the incidence of clinical adverse experiences was comparable between the combination and each of its components. The proportion of patients who discontinued from the study because of clinical adverse experiences was also comparable between the combination and dorzolamide, although it was significantly greater in the combination group than in the timolol group (7% vs. 1%, P = 0.035). Similarly, comparable numbers of patients in the combination and dorzolamide groups reported ocular symptoms; however, when compared to the timolol group, more patients receiving the combination reported blurred vision, burning eye, stinging eye, and tearing eye. CONCLUSIONS: After a washout of ocular hypotensive therapy, the IOP-lowering effect of the dorzolamide-timolol combination was greater than that of either of its components administered as monotherapy. The combination is generally well-tolerated and provides a convenient alternative to concomitant therapy with its individual components.

A randomized trial in patients inadequately controlled with timolol alone comparing the dorzolamide-timolol combination to monotherapy with timolol or dorzolamide. Dorzolamide-Timolol Combination Study Group.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the dorzolamide-timolol fixed combination twice daily to its components, timolol maleate and dorzolamide hydrochloride, given in their usual monotherapy regimens in patients whose intraocular pressure (IOP) was not controlled on timolol twice daily alone. DESIGN: Parallel, randomized, double-masked, and active-controlled study. PARTICIPANTS: Enrolled were 253 patients from 22 sites throughout the United States. INTERVENTION: After a 3-week run-in of timolol (TIMOPTIC; Merck & Co., Inc., Whitehouse Station, NJ) twice daily, eligible patients received either the combination (COSOPT; Merck & Co., Inc., Whitehouse Station, NJ) twice daily (plus placebo to ensure masking), timolol twice daily (plus placebo to ensure masking), or dorzolamide (TRUSOPT; Merck & Co. Inc., Whitehouse Station, NJ) three times daily for 3 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Intraocular pressure taken at hours 0 (trough) and 2 (peak) after week 2 and months 1, 2, and 3 was compared to baseline within each treatment group and between the combination and each component group. The safety profile of the combination was compared to each component. RESULTS: The combination was numerically superior at all study timepoints and was statistically superior at all timepoints except for month 2, hour 0 for timolol, and month 2, hour 2 for dorzolamide. The safety profile of the combination reflected those of its two components. The number of patients reporting ocular or local adverse experiences was greater for the combination (45%) and dorzolamide (45%) than for timolol (27%), with burning and/or stinging eye being the most frequently reported. CONCLUSION: The dorzolamide-timolol combination provides additional IOP lowering compared to either of its individual components and generally is well-tolerated.

Two-year safety study of dorzolamide as monotherapy and with timolol and pilocarpine. Dorzolamide Safety Study Group.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety of open-label 2.0% dorzolamide as monotherapy and when used with timolol and/or pilocarpine for as long as 2 years. METHODS: The safety of dorzolamide was evaluated in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension over a 2-year period. The incidence of the most common drug-related adverse experiences in the first year was compared with that in the second year using McNemar's test. The ocular hypotensive effect of dorzolamide as monotherapy and with adjunctive therapy was assessed using percent change in intraocular pressure (IOP) from baseline. RESULTS: Of the 304 patients enrolled, 164 (53.9%) continued to receive dorzolamide as monotherapy for 2 years and 140 (46.1%) required add-on therapy. Add-on therapy was initiated by month 6 in 112 of these 140 patients (80%). Of the 304 patients, 202 (66.4%) completed 2 years of therapy. Of the patients who received dorzolamide as monotherapy, drug-related adverse events occurred more frequently during the first year (29.7%) than the second year (13.8%), and the most common ocular drug-related adverse events included conjunctivitis, burning/stinging eye, follicular conjunctivitis, and eyelid edema. After 2 years of therapy, the mean percent decrease in peak IOP was 22.8% for patients receiving dorzolamide monotherapy and 31.2% to 36.0% for patients receiving add-on therapy. CONCLUSION: Dorzolamide was generally well tolerated for up to 2 years as monotherapy and when used with timolol and/or pilocarpine. Drug-related adverse events were less frequent during the second year of monotherapy than during the first year. Most patients who required add-on therapy did so within the first 6 months of initiating dorzolamide therapy.

A comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of dorzolamide and acetazolamide as adjunctive therapy to timolol. Oral to Topical CAI Study Group.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of dorzolamide to acetazolamide. METHODS: Following a timolol and acetazolamide run-in, 105 patients with elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) were randomized to dorzolamide or acetazolamide, in addition to timolol, for 12 weeks. RESULTS: More patients receiving acetazolamide discontinued due to clinical adverse experiences than patients receiving dorzolamide; 13 (25%) vs. 1 (2%); p<0.001. The prevalence of systemic adverse experiences for the dorzolamide group dropped by 50% by Week 12, but remained unchanged for the acetazolamide group, as compared to baseline; p<0.001. Ocular burning/stinging was more common in the dorzolamide group (21% vs. 0%; p<0.001). The mean trough IOP at Day 1 and Week 12 were 20.5 mmHg and 21.8 mmHg for the dorzolamide group, and 20.4 mmHg and 20.5 mmHg for the acetazolamide group. The mean peak IOP at Dayl and Week 12 were 18.9 mmHg and 20.0 mmHg for the dorzolamide group, and 18.7 mmHg and 18.6 mmHg for the acetazolamide group. CONCLUSIONS: Mean IOP was slightly lower (by approximately 1 mmHg) with acetazolamide, while dorzolamide demonstrated much better tolerability.

The association of postoperative subjective visual function with acuity, glare, and contrast sensitivity in patients with early cataract.

BACKGROUND: It has been shown in our previous studies that early cataracts affect vision in ways that can be measured by objective means and that this objective impairment in visual acuity, glare, and contrast sensitivity can be successfully reversed by cataract surgery. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association of subjective visual function with objective measures of acuity, glare, and contrast sensitivity in patients who were symptomatic from early cataract. METHODS: We administered a task-oriented questionnaire prior to and 4 months after cataract surgery to patients who were symptomatic from early cataract (median preoperative ETDRS [Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study] visual acuity of 20/40 [range, 20/20 to 20/80]); ETDRS visual acuity, disability glare, and contrast sensitivity were also measured at those times. RESULTS: Uncomplicated cataract surgery resulted in resolution or improvement of subjective symptoms for the great majority of subjects, and in a few subjects new symptoms developed or current symptoms worsened. We found a positive association between postoperative improvement in subjective visual function (as measured by the questionnaire) and postoperative improvement in objective visual function (as measured by visual acuity and contrast sensitivity). We also found that the greater the degree of preoperative impairment in objective visual function (as measured by visual acuity and contrast sensitivity), the greater the postoperative improvement in subjective visual function (as measured by the questionnaire). No such association was found for our disability glare test. CONCLUSIONS: Cataract surgery for symptomatic individuals with mild impairment in visual acuity does relieve visual symptoms, and preoperative measurement of contrast sensitivity can help determine who with early cataract is most likely to report subjective improvement in vision.

Comparison of acuity, contrast sensitivity, and disability glare before and after cataract surgery.

We assessed vision before and after uncomplicated extracapsular cataract extraction and intraocular lens implantation in 72 symptomatic patients with acuity equal to or better than 20/80 and no other ocular abnormality. Contrast sensitivity was measured with the Pelli-Robson Letter Chart (Metropia Ltd, Cambridge, England) and disability glare was measured under daytime conditions with the Brightness Acuity Tester (Mentor O&O Inc, Norwell, Mass) and under nighttime conditions with a computer-controlled video display. Prior to surgery there was significant disability glare that was not correlated with acuity. There was also a loss in contrast sensitivity that was moderately correlated with acuity (r = -.43; P < .001). Following surgery, most patients' scores returned to normal on all tests. Improvement in disability glare and contrast sensitivity was independent of improvement in acuity. Furthermore, patients with the poorest preoperative vision were as likely to regain normal function after surgery as those with the best preoperative vision.