A randomised, double masked, multicentre clinical trial comparing bimatoprost and timolol for the treatment of glaucoma and ocular hypertension

Louis Cantor, A. M. van Denburgh, K. Chen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

61 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Aim: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of bimatoprost 0.03% once daily or twice daily compared with timolol 0.5% twice daily in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Methods: Multicentre, double masked, randomised, parallel group, 3 month trial comparing bimatoprost once daily (n=240), bimatoprost twice daily (n=240), and timolol twice daily (n=122). The primary efficacy end point was diurnal intraocular pressure (IOP) (8 am, 10 am, 4 pm). Safety measures included adverse events, ocular parameters, and systemic variables. Results: Bimatoprost once daily provided significantly lower mean IOP than timolol twice daily at all times and follow up visits (p<0.001). At month 3, mean IOP reductions from baseline at 10 am (peak timolol effect) were bimatoprost once daily, 8.0 mm Hg (32.4%); bimatoprost twice daily, 6.3 mm Hg (25.2%); timolol, 5.5 mm Hg (22.7%). Bimatoprost twice daily was also more effective than timolol, but was not as effective as bimatoprost once daily. A higher percentage of patients achieved low target pressures with bimatoprost once daily than with timolol. The most frequent side effects with bimatoprost were eyelash growth and mild conjunctival hyperaemia. Systemic safety parameters were not affected by bimatoprost. Conclusions: Bimatoprost 0.03% once daily demonstrated superior efficacy compared with timolol 0.5% twice daily in patients with elevated IOP. Bimatoprost once daily was more effective than twice daily dosing.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)57-62
Number of pages6
JournalBritish Journal of Ophthalmology
Volume87
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2003

Fingerprint

Timolol
Ocular Hypertension
Glaucoma
Multicenter Studies
Clinical Trials
Intraocular Pressure
Therapeutics
Safety
Bimatoprost
Eyelashes
Hyperemia
Double-Blind Method

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ophthalmology

Cite this

A randomised, double masked, multicentre clinical trial comparing bimatoprost and timolol for the treatment of glaucoma and ocular hypertension. / Cantor, Louis; van Denburgh, A. M.; Chen, K.

In: British Journal of Ophthalmology, Vol. 87, No. 1, 01.01.2003, p. 57-62.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{985bd497be9d44eb8f559fe0ae15189d,
title = "A randomised, double masked, multicentre clinical trial comparing bimatoprost and timolol for the treatment of glaucoma and ocular hypertension",
abstract = "Aim: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of bimatoprost 0.03{\%} once daily or twice daily compared with timolol 0.5{\%} twice daily in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Methods: Multicentre, double masked, randomised, parallel group, 3 month trial comparing bimatoprost once daily (n=240), bimatoprost twice daily (n=240), and timolol twice daily (n=122). The primary efficacy end point was diurnal intraocular pressure (IOP) (8 am, 10 am, 4 pm). Safety measures included adverse events, ocular parameters, and systemic variables. Results: Bimatoprost once daily provided significantly lower mean IOP than timolol twice daily at all times and follow up visits (p<0.001). At month 3, mean IOP reductions from baseline at 10 am (peak timolol effect) were bimatoprost once daily, 8.0 mm Hg (32.4{\%}); bimatoprost twice daily, 6.3 mm Hg (25.2{\%}); timolol, 5.5 mm Hg (22.7{\%}). Bimatoprost twice daily was also more effective than timolol, but was not as effective as bimatoprost once daily. A higher percentage of patients achieved low target pressures with bimatoprost once daily than with timolol. The most frequent side effects with bimatoprost were eyelash growth and mild conjunctival hyperaemia. Systemic safety parameters were not affected by bimatoprost. Conclusions: Bimatoprost 0.03{\%} once daily demonstrated superior efficacy compared with timolol 0.5{\%} twice daily in patients with elevated IOP. Bimatoprost once daily was more effective than twice daily dosing.",
author = "Louis Cantor and {van Denburgh}, {A. M.} and K. Chen",
year = "2003",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1136/bjo.87.1.57",
language = "English",
volume = "87",
pages = "57--62",
journal = "British Journal of Ophthalmology",
issn = "0007-1161",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A randomised, double masked, multicentre clinical trial comparing bimatoprost and timolol for the treatment of glaucoma and ocular hypertension

AU - Cantor, Louis

AU - van Denburgh, A. M.

AU - Chen, K.

PY - 2003/1/1

Y1 - 2003/1/1

N2 - Aim: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of bimatoprost 0.03% once daily or twice daily compared with timolol 0.5% twice daily in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Methods: Multicentre, double masked, randomised, parallel group, 3 month trial comparing bimatoprost once daily (n=240), bimatoprost twice daily (n=240), and timolol twice daily (n=122). The primary efficacy end point was diurnal intraocular pressure (IOP) (8 am, 10 am, 4 pm). Safety measures included adverse events, ocular parameters, and systemic variables. Results: Bimatoprost once daily provided significantly lower mean IOP than timolol twice daily at all times and follow up visits (p<0.001). At month 3, mean IOP reductions from baseline at 10 am (peak timolol effect) were bimatoprost once daily, 8.0 mm Hg (32.4%); bimatoprost twice daily, 6.3 mm Hg (25.2%); timolol, 5.5 mm Hg (22.7%). Bimatoprost twice daily was also more effective than timolol, but was not as effective as bimatoprost once daily. A higher percentage of patients achieved low target pressures with bimatoprost once daily than with timolol. The most frequent side effects with bimatoprost were eyelash growth and mild conjunctival hyperaemia. Systemic safety parameters were not affected by bimatoprost. Conclusions: Bimatoprost 0.03% once daily demonstrated superior efficacy compared with timolol 0.5% twice daily in patients with elevated IOP. Bimatoprost once daily was more effective than twice daily dosing.

AB - Aim: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of bimatoprost 0.03% once daily or twice daily compared with timolol 0.5% twice daily in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Methods: Multicentre, double masked, randomised, parallel group, 3 month trial comparing bimatoprost once daily (n=240), bimatoprost twice daily (n=240), and timolol twice daily (n=122). The primary efficacy end point was diurnal intraocular pressure (IOP) (8 am, 10 am, 4 pm). Safety measures included adverse events, ocular parameters, and systemic variables. Results: Bimatoprost once daily provided significantly lower mean IOP than timolol twice daily at all times and follow up visits (p<0.001). At month 3, mean IOP reductions from baseline at 10 am (peak timolol effect) were bimatoprost once daily, 8.0 mm Hg (32.4%); bimatoprost twice daily, 6.3 mm Hg (25.2%); timolol, 5.5 mm Hg (22.7%). Bimatoprost twice daily was also more effective than timolol, but was not as effective as bimatoprost once daily. A higher percentage of patients achieved low target pressures with bimatoprost once daily than with timolol. The most frequent side effects with bimatoprost were eyelash growth and mild conjunctival hyperaemia. Systemic safety parameters were not affected by bimatoprost. Conclusions: Bimatoprost 0.03% once daily demonstrated superior efficacy compared with timolol 0.5% twice daily in patients with elevated IOP. Bimatoprost once daily was more effective than twice daily dosing.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0037233109&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0037233109&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/bjo.87.1.57

DO - 10.1136/bjo.87.1.57

M3 - Article

VL - 87

SP - 57

EP - 62

JO - British Journal of Ophthalmology

JF - British Journal of Ophthalmology

SN - 0007-1161

IS - 1

ER -