Comparison of 24 hour control with Timoptic 0.5% and Timoptic-XE 0.5% in exfoliation and primary open-angle glaucoma.

PURPOSE: To compare the 24 hour intraocular pressure (IOP) curve in exfoliation glaucoma (EXG) and primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) patients treated first with timolol solution 0.5% (TS) twice daily and then with timolol maleate gel forming solution 0.5% (TXE) once daily. METHODS: We prospectively investigated age-matched, newly diagnosed EXG (n = 25) and POAG (n = 25) patients who were admitted as in-patients for 24 hour phasing first with TS and then TXE. RESULTS: Generally TS and TXE controlled both POAG and EXG patients in a similar fashion. However, a trend to lower pressures was observed in both EXG and POAG patients with TS therapy. At two time points (10:00 and 22:00) in POAG patients, TS (18.4 +/- 3.7 and 17.2 +/- 3.1 mm Hg, respectively) provided lower intraocular pressures than TXE (19.8 +/- 3.5 and 18.9 +/- 3.8 mm Hg, respectively) (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Both TS twice daily and TXE once daily control POAG and EXG generally to a similar extent.

Systemic beta-blockade with once daily Betimol or Timoptic-XE.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of timolol hemihydrate 0.5% (Betimol [THH], Ciba Vision Ophthalmics) and timolol maleate gel forming solution 0.5% (Timoptic-XE , [TXE], Merck, Inc.), when both are dosed once daily on the exercise performance. Maximum exercise heart rate reflects systemic beta-blockade activity. Fourteen healthy subjects were randomized to receive either placebo (HypoTears , Ciba Vision Ophthalmics), THH, or TXE by a Latin square technique in a three period crossover design. Subjects were dosed one drop every morning beginning three days before exercise testing. The interval between each test was one week. Exercise testing was performed two hours after dosing. Maximum exercise heart rate showed no statistical difference between TXE and THH (174 +/- 13.1 vs. 172 +/- 14.9 beats/min, respectively, P = 0.72). Both active treatments, however, decreased heart rate compared to placebo (185 +/- 7.3 beats/min, P = 0.017). Time to exhaustion showed no difference between groups (P > 0.10). The double product (product of heart rate and systolic blood pressure) did not show a difference between TXE and THH (P = 0.38) but was reduced compared to placebo (P = 0.0053). One subject on TXE was discontinued from the study after the first exercise test because of secondary heart block during the recovery period. It was concluded that TXE and timolol hemihydrate solution show similar systemic beta-blockade activity when both are dosed once a day.

The efficacy and safety of diclofenac 0.1% versus prednisolone acetate 1% following trabeculectomy with adjunctive mitomycin-C.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of diclofenac 0.1% versus prednisolone acetate 1% following trabeculectomy with adjunctive mitomycin-C. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The authors prospectively randomized chronic open-angle glaucoma patients who underwent trabeculectomy with adjunctive mitomycin-C to receive postoperatively either diclofenac 0.1% or prednisolone acetate 1% 4 times daily, to be tapered as inflammation resolved. RESULTS: In the diclofenac group (n = 14), the preoperative intraocular pressure of 30.4 +/- 13.1 decreased to 12.4 +/- 6.5 mm Hg at 6 months postoperatively. In the prednisolone acetate group (n = 12), the preoperative intraocular pressure decreased from 29.1 +/- 10.4 to 12.8 +/- 4.2 mm Hg at 6 months postoperatively (P = .85). The average number of medicines used 6 months postoperatively was 0.50 +/- 0.8 in the diclofenac group and 0.24 +/- 0.6 in the prednisolone acetate group (P = .36). Adverse events were similar between groups (P = .51). One patient in the diclofenac group underwent reoperation at 1 month due to uncontrolled intraocular pressure. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that following trabeculectomy with adjunctive mitomycin-C, a similar intraocular pressure result may be expected when either diclofenac or prednisolone acetate is prescribed postoperatively for intraocular inflammation.

The safety and efficacy of switching timolol maleate 0.5% solution to timolol hemihydrate 0.5% solution given twice daily.

This study was undertaken to evaluate the safety and efficacy of switching patients treated with timolol maleate to timolol hemihydrate. In patients with ocular hypertension or chronic open-angle glaucoma treated with beta-blockers for at least three months, we prescribed timolol maleate solution 0.5% given twice daily for one month. We then switched each patient to timolol hemihydrate solution 0.5% (Betimol, Ciba Vision Ophthalmics) given twice daily for three months. This study found over the first three months in 30 completed subjects, using a worse eye analysis, that the intraocular pressure changed from 18.3+/-2.1 mm Hg on timolol maleate to 18.8+/-2.3 mm Hg on timolol hemihydrate (P=0.10) 12 hours after dosing. There was no difference in the overall incidence of unsolicited anterior segment side effects between timolol maleate (4 cases) versus timolol hemihydrate (3 cases) (P=0.69). One patient exited the study because of pain and burning in both eyes while on timolol maleate. No patient was discontinued due to loss of intraocular pressure control after switching to timolol hemihydrate. It was concluded that switching from timolol maleate to timolol hemihydrate is safe and effective in maintaining control of the intraocular pressure.

Intraoperative intracameral carbachol in phacoemulsification and posterior chamber lens implantation.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the use of intraoperative intracameral carbachol in association with phacoemulsification and posterior lens implantation. METHODS: We prospectively randomly assigned 41 eyes (41 patients) to receive either placebo or a 50:50 dilution of carbachol 0.01% after intraocular lens insertion and phacoemulsification. RESULTS: Twenty-one eyes of 21 patients treated with intracameral carbachol showed a statistically significant (P = .0373) reduction in intraocular pressure (15.9 mm Hg) at 6 hours postoperatively compared with 20 eyes of 20 patients who had received placebo (20.4 mm Hg). At day 1, the carbachol group measured 15.0 mm Hg vs 17.6 mm Hg for placebo (P = .0376), and a 1.5-line improvement in visual acuity in the carbachol vs the placebo group was noted (P = .0263), which was maintained on glare testing. On quality of life testing using a modified SF-36 test, carbachol-treated patients within the first postoperative week more often attempted to descent stairs in both bright (P = .007) and dim (P = .037) light than did patients treated with placebo. At month 2, no difference was observed between groups except that depth of focus was statistically greater in the carbachol group (P = .025). Safety was similar between the two groups in terms of ocular and systemic adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with carbachol intracamerally after phacoemulsification and posterior chamber lens implantation demonstrate lower intraocular pressure within the first day postoperatively. These findings are associated with improved visual acuity and potentially greater ambulation in bright light within the first postoperative week.

Efficacy and safety of timolol solution once daily versus timolol gel in treating elevated intraocular pressure.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of timolol hemihydrate once daily versus timolol maleate gel forming solution once daily in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. METHODS: We prospectively randomized patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension to receive either timolol hemihydrate 0.5% solution or timolol maleate gel forming solution 0.5% every morning. The primary efficacy variable was the 8:00 AM trough intraocular pressure (IOP) 24 hours after administration. RESULTS: Three months after initiation of therapy, baseline IOP had decreased from 23.6 +/- 1.9 mmHg to 18.3 +/- 2.8 mmHg in the group taking timolol hemihydrate (n = 22) and from 23.7 +/- 2.2 mmHg to 18.4 +/- 3.1 mmHg in the group receiving timolol maleate gel (n = 21) at the 24-hour trough level. This was not a significant difference between groups at 3 months. Also, no difference was observed between groups in the 2-hour post instillation IOP. Visual acuity was decreased in the group receiving timolol maleate gel compared with those receiving timolol hemihydrate one minute after instillation of study medicine at month 3. Otherwise, ocular and systemic safety were similar between groups. No differences between groups in cardiac pulse or systolic and diastolic blood pressure were observed. CONCLUSION: Timolol hemihydrate 0.5% solution given once a day appears to be as efficacious and safe in decreasing IOP as timolol maleate gel 0.5% given once a day.

Effect of timolol on the diurnal intraocular pressure in exfoliation and primary open-angle glaucoma.

OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare the diurnal intraocular pressure (IOP) variation in patients with exfoliation glaucoma (EXG) and primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) who were treated with a solution of timolol maleate (0.5%) twice daily. DESIGN: Consecutive Greek patients who were newly diagnosed as having EXG or POAG were prospectively investigated; they underwent 24-hour diurnal IOP measurements first without therapy and then 6 months afterward while they were being treated with timolol maleate (0.5%). After matching for age, 38 pairs of patients with these 2 types of glaucoma were compared. RESULTS: Untreated patients with EXG had significantly higher IOP values for all time points assessed and a greater mean range of IOPs (11.8 mm Hg for EXG vs 7.6 mm Hg for POAG; P < or = .001). Following therapy with timolol maleate (0.5%) given twice daily, patients with EXG had higher IOP values for the measurements that were obtained at 6 and 10 AM, 10 PM, and 2 AM, a higher mean range of IOPs (7.0 mm Hg for EXG vs 5.6 mm Hg for POAG; P = .03), and a higher maximum IOP (mean, 24.9 mm Hg for EXG vs 20.9 mm Hg for POAG; P = .003). The reduction of the range of diurnal variation of IOP was more pronounced in patients with EXG than in patients with POAG (40% vs 26%; P = .04). Twenty-two (58%) of 38 patients with EXG and 20 (53%) of 38 patients with POAG had peak IOP values that were found outside office hours. Only 5 (13%) of the patients with EXG exhibited an IOP of 18 mm Hg or less at all time points compared with 12 (32%) of the patients with POAG (P = .05). CONCLUSION: Despite a greater initial IOP reduction in the patients with EXG treated with timolol, a higher IOP and significant fluctuation in the diurnal curve of IOP during the time in which patients received therapy still characterized EXG from POAG.