Journal of Glaucoma

Home Current Issue Previous Issues Published Ahead-of-Print For Authors Journal Info
Skip Navigation LinksHome > April/May 2008 - Volume 17 - Issue 3 > Bimatoprost/Timolol Fixed Combination: A 3-month Double-mask...
Journal of Glaucoma:
April/May 2008 - Volume 17 - Issue 3 - pp 211-216
doi: 10.1097/IJG.0b013e3181507313
Original Studies

Bimatoprost/Timolol Fixed Combination: A 3-month Double-masked, Randomized Parallel Comparison to Its Individual Components in Patients With Glaucoma or Ocular Hypertension

Brandt, James D. MD; Cantor, Louis B. MD; Katz, L. Jay MD; Batoosingh, Amy L. BA; Chou, Connie PhD; Bossowska, Izabella MD; for the Ganfort Investigators Group II

Collapse Box

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of a fixed combination (FC) of bimatoprost (BIM) and timolol (TIM) compared with each of the active components for 3 months.

Patients and Methods: Two double-masked, randomized, multicenter parallel studies of FC (once-daily, mornings), BIM (once-daily, evenings), or TIM (twice-daily) were conducted in 1061 patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension.

Results: Mean diurnal decreases from baseline intraocular pressure (IOP) at month 3 were 8.1, 7.9, and 6.4 mm Hg for the FC, BIM, and TIM groups, respectively. The proportion of patients with a mean diurnal percent reduction from baseline in IOP of more than 20% across all visits was 81.8% (436/533), 72.1% (191/265), and 49.8% (131/263) for the FC, BIM, and TIM groups, respectively (P<0.001 for FC vs. BIM and FC vs. TIM). The proportion of patients achieving an IOP of less than 18 mm Hg at all time points was 39.2% (209/533), 28.7% (76/265), and 12.2% (32/263) for the FC, BIM, and TIM groups, respectively (P=0.003 for FC vs. BIM, and P<0.001 for FC vs. TIM). The most commonly reported treatment-related adverse event was conjunctival hyperemia, with the greatest incidence in BIM (38.5%, 102/265), followed by FC (22.7%, 121/533, P<0.0001 vs. BIM) and TIM (6.8%, 18/263; P<0.001 vs. FC).

Conclusions: FC was statistically significantly more effective than BIM or TIM for most comparisons, and safer than BIM with respect to common ocular adverse events. FC represents a convenient, therapeutic advantage over separate bottles.

© 2008 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.

You currently do not have access to this article.

You may need to:

Note: If your society membership provides for full-access to this article, you may need to login on your society’s web site first.

Article Tools

You currently do not have access to this article.

You may need to:

Note: If your society membership provides for full-access to this article, you may need to login on your society’s web site first.

Search for Similar Articles
You may search for similar articles that contain these same keywords or you may modify the keyword list to augment your search.