One-Year, Randomized Study Comparing Bimatoprost and Timolol in Glaucoma and Ocular Hypertension

Higginbotham, Eve J.; Schuman, Joel S.; Goldberg, Ivan; Gross, Ronald L.; VanDenburgh, Amanda M.; Chen, Kuankuan; Whitcup, Scott M.

doi:10.1001/archopht.120.10.1286

Cited by 181 publications

(162 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

158

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Média (dp) Dentre os pacientes estudados, 17 (26,6%) apresentaram queixa de hiperemia conjuntival, incidência esta menor do que o encontrado por Brandt et al (18) , em cujo estudo achou-se 38,5% de ocorrência. Não foi observado crescimento dos cílios, sendo que isto pode se dever ao fato de os pacientes terem sido acompanhados por apenas 1 mês, tempo inferior ao encontrado na literatura para a observação do efeito (19)(20)(21) .…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

Avaliação da eficácia do bimatoprosta 0,03% (Glamigan, Germed, Brasil) na redução da pressão intraocular em pacientes com glaucoma primário de ângulo aberto e hipertensão ocular

Almodin¹,

Sessa²,

Almodin³

et al. 2012

Rev. bras.oftalmol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionunclassified

Avaliação da eficácia do bimatoprosta 0,03% (Glamigan, Germed, Brasil) na redução da pressão intraocular em pacientes com glaucoma primário de ângulo aberto e hipertensão ocular

Almodin¹,

Sessa²,

Almodin³

et al. 2012

Rev. bras.oftalmol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…5 According to our starting hypothesis of demonstrating a similar or greater IOP reduction at an alpha error or Pr0.05 in bilateral contrast with 90% power, 30 eyes were needed in each group.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A 6-month assessment of bimatoprost 0.03% vs timolol maleate 0.5%: hypotensive efficacy, macular thickness and flare in ocular-hypertensive and glaucoma patients

Martín

Martinez-de-la-Casa

García‐Feijoó

et al. 2005

Eye

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim To compare 6 months of treatment with bimatoprost and timolol in terms of their hypotensive efficacy and secondary effects, including changes in macular thickness and the inflammatory reaction induced in the anterior chamber. Methods A prospective, randomized, parallel-group trial performed on 30 eyes of 30 patients per group. The main outcome measure was the difference between the IOP value taken between the baseline visit and the 6-month-visit. Macular thickness determined through optical coherence tomography and anterior chamber inflammation estimated using the laser flare meter was also evaluated. Adverse events were recorded during the study period. Results Bimatoprost treatment gave rise to a significantly lower mean IOP than timolol in all follow-up visits as from the first month (Po0.05). Bimatoprost achieved high percentage IOP reductions from baseline in a significantly higher proportion of patients (Po0.05). Macular thickness and anterior chamber flare failed to vary significantly both between the two groups and within each group during the 6-month evaluation (P40.05). Conclusions Bimatoprost 0.03% once daily showed a greater efficacy then timolol 0.05% twice daily in patients with elevated IOP. No significant differences were detected in macular thickness or anterior uveitis using optical coherence tomography and laser flare photometry.

show abstract

“…The model supposed that from the initial treatment patients would enter into one of four health states: controlled (ie pressure p18 mmHg) without a side effect, uncontrolled (ie pressureX 18 mmHg) without a side effect, discontinue the medication due to a side effect and be controlled on the new medicine, or discontinue the medication due to a side effect and be uncontrolled on the new medicine. 4,7,[27][28][29][30][31] The cycle stage was assumed to be 1 year. Previously published persistency rates were used to determine discontinuation rates during the first year of therapy.…”

Section: Markov Model: Medical Aspectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…28,42 Those who were controlled with adjunctive therapy were assumed to maintain their therapy, and to be stable, for the remaining life of the model. Those who were uncontrolled on two medicines entered either the stable or unstable Markov branch and were assumed to undergo argon laser trabeculoplasty.…”

Section: Markov Model: Medical Aspectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost-effectiveness of latanoprost and timolol maleate for the treatment of glaucoma in Scandinavia and the United Kingdom, using a decision-analytic health economic model

Stewart

Mychaskiw

2007

Eye

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To assess the cost-effectiveness of latanoprost or timolol in glaucoma treatment in Norway, Sweden, Denmark (Scandinavia) and the United Kingdom (UK). Methods A Markov model was constructed to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis. Health states were 'stable' and 'progressed' glaucoma, and transition probabilities for both primary open-angle and exfoliation glaucoma were derived from the medical literature. Practice patterns were obtained from surveys completed by 54 ophthalmologists geographically dispersed throughout each country. Country specific unit costs were used for medications, patient visits, diagnostics, and therapeutic procedures. Results Over the life of the model latanoprost was less expensive than timolol by 5.3-7.6% (Scandinavia) and 2.1% (UK). Following adjustments, therapy in the original timolol-treated cohort was slightly more effective in each country with a difference in 0.003-0.015 years to progression of glaucoma existing between latanoprost. This may have resulted from the model design, which reflected that physicians ultimately control most patients' glaucoma over 5 years by adding or changing therapy. The associated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for latanoprost vs timolol generated by the Scandinavian and the UK models, respectively, were: Norway 351 396 NOK; Sweden 988 985 SEK; Denmark 351 641; and the UK 4751 GBP. Conclusions Over 5 years, in the UK timolol is the cost-effective option, whereas in Scandinavia latanoprost may be the costeffective alternative to timolol.

show abstract

One-Year, Randomized Study Comparing Bimatoprost and Timolol in Glaucoma and Ocular Hypertension

Cited by 181 publications

References 20 publications

Avaliação da eficácia do bimatoprosta 0,03% (Glamigan, Germed, Brasil) na redução da pressão intraocular em pacientes com glaucoma primário de ângulo aberto e hipertensão ocular

Avaliação da eficácia do bimatoprosta 0,03% (Glamigan, Germed, Brasil) na redução da pressão intraocular em pacientes com glaucoma primário de ângulo aberto e hipertensão ocular

A 6-month assessment of bimatoprost 0.03% vs timolol maleate 0.5%: hypotensive efficacy, macular thickness and flare in ocular-hypertensive and glaucoma patients

Cost-effectiveness of latanoprost and timolol maleate for the treatment of glaucoma in Scandinavia and the United Kingdom, using a decision-analytic health economic model

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About