Glaucoma
Read Time: 8 mins

Managing Primary Open-angle Glaucoma – Ocular Tolerability, Compliance, Persistence and Patient Outcomes

Published Online: March 2nd 2011 European Ophthalmic Review, 2009,3(1):19-22 DOI: http://doi.org/10.17925/EOR.2009.03.01.19
Authors: Anton Hommer
Quick Links:
Abstract
Article
Article Information
Abstract:
Overview

Primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) is a progressive optic neuropathy that, left untreated, can lead to irreversible damage to the optic nerve and permanent vision loss. To date, intraocular pressure (IOP) is the only modifiable risk factor for disease progression, and topical eye-drops are currently used as the leading non-surgical glaucoma therapy. Despite the efficacy of pharmacotherapy in lowering IOP, success is ultimately defined by patient compliance and patient persistence. Ocular tolerability is a crucial factor in patient compliance and persistence; non-adherence owing to adverse effects can lead to poor control of IOP and treatment failure. Prostaglandin analogues are currently the first-line antiglaucoma agents, with a good tolerability profile and a better IOP-lowering effect compared with β-blockers. Combination therapies have also shown greater efficacy in lowering IOP compared with the individual constituents, with fewer adverse effects. Treatment should be tailored to the individual patient, with a focus on ocular tolerability and its role in adherence, compliance and vision preservation.

Keywords

Primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG), intraocular pressure (IOP), β-blockers, prostaglandin analogues, combination therapy, ocular tolerability

Article:

The optic neuropathy glaucoma affects more than 70 million people globally and is a leading cause of blindness in Europe.1,2 The most common form is chronic or primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG), which accounts for approximately 90–95% of all glaucoma cases.3 This slowly progressive disease is associated with several key risk factors, including an increase in intraocular pressure (IOP), age, vertical cup/disc ratio, central corneal thickness and Humphrey visual field pattern standard.4–6 Elevated IOP is a significant risk factor for disease progression even after adjusting for age, race and visual field damage.7 Elevated IOP can lead to optic nerve damage, and as the optic nerve is incapable of regenerating, any deterioration leads to permanent vision loss.

Currently, IOP is the only demonstrated modifiable risk factor for disease progression, and the benefits of IOP lowering have been well documented in several clinical trials; these include improved perfusion pressure, less loss of visual field and reduced disease development or progression.8–14 While not guaranteed to ensure success in every patient with glaucoma, IOP lowering is nevertheless the only therapeutic option available that has this wealth of evidence; other options have little to no evidence-based support. Although a complete analysis of results has yet to be published, the second phase III clinical trial examining oral memantine as a neuroprotective agent in glaucoma found no significant benefit for memantine over placebo in disease progression.4,15 Thus far, any neuroprotective benefits offered to patients with glaucoma occur as an indirect effect of lowering IOP where deterioration of the optic nerve is prevented.

Although some physicians prefer to lower IOP by a certain percentage from baseline, this approach is not always ideal: some patients will need more IOP lowering, while others will require less. Neither can an absolute target be used, because therapy in glaucoma patients should be individualised based on a number of variables. The European Glaucoma Society suggests that factors such as IOP level prior to treatment, stage of disease, rate of progression, age and life expectancy and the presence of other risk factors should all be considered in order to determine target pressure.4 However, target pressures are not static: in clinical practice it may be necessary to continually revise the target pressure according to the individual’s needs and the disease progression of the patient.

As mentioned previously, any visual damage that occurs as a result of POAG is irreversible. However, effective treatment and adequate control of IOP can arrest disease progression. Pharmacotherapies applied as topical eye-drops form the mainstay of non-surgical glaucoma therapy. Unfortunately, success in preventing visual field loss is only as successful as the degree to which patients adhere to medical therapy in terms of how and when they take their medication (compliance) and for how long (persistence). The ocular tolerability of a medication and its impact on a patient’s compliance and persistence are significant factors that can affect patient outcome. It is important for physicians to consider these factors when selecting a medical therapy, while also stressing the importance of treatment adherence to their glaucoma patients. Non-adherence due to poor ocular tolerability can lead to treatment failure because of inadequate IOP control. Glaucoma treatment should therefore be determined with regard not only to IOP lowering, but also to minimisation of systemic and ocular adverse events, while taking into account compliance as part of individualisation of patient care.

From β-blockers to Prostaglandin Analogues and Beyond
Generally, initial treatment for lowering IOP is topical medical therapy with monotherapy as first choice. Several classes of antiglaucoma medication are currently available, including β-blockers, prostaglandin analogues, alpha-2 adrenergic agonists, topical carbonic anhydrase inhibitors (CAIs) and parasympathomimetic agonists. The latest European Glaucoma Society guidelines recommend that the choice of initial monotherapy be based on physician preference.4 In recent years prostaglandin analogues have emerged as first-line agents. Current data show that 40–75% of glaucoma patients fail monotherapy after more than two years of treatment.10,16 In these patients, combination therapy and/or furtheradjunctive therapy is often considered.

β-blockers
β-adrenergic antagonists block the β-receptors in the ciliary body, thereby decreasing aqueous humour production. With over 30 years of clinical experience, the strengths of β-blockers, as well as their weaknesses, are well-established. Although able to lower IOP effectively, these drugs have systemic effects on the circulation, respiration and metabolism. Notably, owing to their systemic absorption, β-blockers present concerns for patients with cardiopulmonary disease. They have been associated with congestive heart failure, bradycardia, arrhythmias, syncope, heart block and systemic hypotension.17–22 β-blockade has also been shown to exacerbate asthma, reactive airway disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and bronchitis.20,23–25 Worsening of dry-eye syndrome, confusion and decreased libido have also been observed.25 Because a lot of patients with glaucoma are elderly, and many of them have cardiovascular, pulmonary or respiratory problems, β-blockers have become less popular in recent years, making way for the current most commonly used first-line agents: prostaglandin analogues.

Prostaglandin Analogues
Prostaglandin analogues lower IOP by increasing uveoscleral and conventional outflow. A meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials up to 2003 showed that, compared with any other class of topical antiglaucoma agent, prostaglandins were the most potent topical agents for IOP lowering, with the highest peak mean difference from baseline IOP.26 In addition to an enhanced IOP-lowering profile, the systemic side effects common with β-blockers are largely absent in therapy with prostaglandins. Furthermore, unlike β-blockers, prostaglandins need only a single daily dose instead of twice-daily dosing. These factors – increased IOP potency, lack of systemic side effects and convenient dosing schedule – represent the main advantages of using prostaglandins in lieu of topical β-blockers in glaucoma therapy. Prostaglandins are generally well-tolerated, although there are some local side effects that are largely of only cosmetic significance. Hyperpigmentation of the iris and periocular skin occurs quite commonly, in addition to lengthening of the eyelashes. The most common side effect of prostaglandins relates to ocular tolerability – namely conjunctival hyperaemia,27 which is tolerable if mild, but less so if moderate to severe.

Alpha-2 Adrenergic Agonists and Carbonic Anhydrase Inhibitors
Alpha-2 adrenergic agonists decrease IOP levels by reducing aqueous humour production while increasing uveoscleral outflow,28 while CAIs function by decreasing aqueous production.29 Although these drug classes are also indicated as first-line glaucoma treatments, they are limited by the number of associated adverse effects. Possible side effects for alpha-2 adrenergic agonists include allergic reaction, blurring, headache, fatigue, hypotension, insomnia, depression, syncope, dizziness and anxiety. Topical CAIs are associated with blurred vision, irritation, dermatitis and bitter taste.

Combination Therapy
Although the prostaglandin analogues have a strong IOP-lowering profile, many patients still require a multimodal approach withmultiple topical medications in order to achieve target pressurecontrol;10,16 patients are commonly treated primarily with aprostaglandin plus an additional drug in combination.22,30–32 In some cases where target IOP is still not achieved, the addition of a thirddrug may be considered. However, the use of multiple topical treatments increases the risk of adverse effects and nonadherence. The convenience of dosing in these multiple drug regimens can be improved via fixed drug combinations, the most recent addition to the armamentarium of antiglaucoma drugs. The simplicity of a single as opposed to multiple administration has been shown to improve patient adherence.33 Fixed combinations also prevent medication washout, which occurs when patients on multiple drugs apply their medications with too short an interval between drops, leading to a significant washout effect.34 Moreover, in the event of needing to add a β-blocker to a prostaglandincontaining regimen, a once-daily fixed-dose combination product would administer less β-blocker than a twice-daily regimen, thereby reducing the rate or severity of adverse effects, as well asthe daily topical preservative load, without sacrificing efficacy.35 Several fixed-combination formulations are now available and all contain a β-blocker as one component.

Fixed-combination therapies are now widely used in glaucoma therapy, particularly the combination of the prostaglandin analogue latanoprost and the β-blocker timolol, and that of the CAI dorzolamide and timolol. The fixed combination of latanoprost/ timolol has been extensively studied, and has been shown to be equal or superior in efficacy to either component as monotherapy,31,36–40 It has also been shown to be more efficacious than the unfixed combination.41 In addition, latanoprost/timolol has demonstrated superiority over other combinations, including fixed combination dorzolamide and timolol42–44 and the unfixed combination of brimonidine and timolol,45,46 albeit with a few exceptions where dosing schedules varied or the study population was very small.47–49

In general, fixed combinations of antiglaucoma agents have shown superior efficacy over their individual counterparts in terms of IOP lowering,50,51 as well as a trend towards fewer adverse effects.42,52–56 As well as benefits, there are also limitations associated with fixed combinations of antiglaucoma agents, the most obvious of which is the inability to alter the dosing frequency of the components in the combination product. This can potentially hinder the ability to tailor therapy towards the individual, and can interfere with the optimal dosing schedule.

The Importance of Long-term Patient Compliance, Medication Persistence and Ocular Tolerability
Although the impact of non-adherence to medical therapy on linical outcome has yet to be established, the issue is an important consideration in glaucoma management. As a chronic and progressive disease, glaucoma is a lifelong condition that will continually worsen without medical intervention. In most cases, POAG is asymptomatic until the disease has progressed enough to significantly damage the peripheral visual field; symptomstherefore present only at the advanced stage. Left untreated, loss of the visual field can extend from the peripheral to central vision. However, lack of symptoms in the early stages of POAG means thatmany patients do not feel compelled to follow a therapeutic regimen. This is further compounded by medications that are associated with side effects, some of which can potentially reduce a patient’s quality of life; if a patient feels no immediate therapeutic benefit from taking a drug but experiences irritating or debilitating side effects, the likelihood of that patient remaining compliant is low. The frequency of doses is also an issue, as a once-daily medication is generally better than a regimen that needs to be administered twice or thrice daily.33,57 In order to maintain long-term patient adherence in terms of both compliance and mediation persistence, tolerability should also be optimised to minimise ocular and systemic side effects. In order to convince patients to adhere to their medication, it is not sufficient only to preserve the visual field and prevent further damage; it is also necessary to offer a satisfactory level of quality of life with minimal adverse effects. Furthermore, patient adherence needs to be continuously addressed by the physician.

Ocular Tolerability
Control of IOP is of course a very important variable to consider with respect to impact on patient outcome. For the most part, a lower IOP is generally better, but again it should be noted that the best practice is to individualise treatment. Nevertheless, the importance of ocular tolerability cannot be underestimated; poor tolerability negatively affects adherence to medication usage, and reduced compliance is the main reason for treatment failure. For glaucoma patients who require lifelong treatment and follow-up care to prevent disease progression and preserve vision, long-term patient compliance and persistence with medication is imperative. One of the most important factors influencing compliance and persistence is the side effect profile, both local and systemic.58 Indeed, patients are most often more aware of side effects than benefits. Efficacy in IOP lowering is an important factor to consider, but the balance with tolerability has to be carefully established on an individual basis, with an emphasis on maximising compliance. Clearly, patient compliance, medication persistence and ocular tolerability are inter-related variables and must all be considered when selecting a treatment. In a progressive disease such as glaucoma, efficacy is of little consequence if a patient chooses not to take his or her medicine because of the side effects.

Nearly all topical antiglaucoma medications, and in particular the prostaglandin analogues, have been associated with the development of conjunctival hyperaemia.59 Moreover, there is the concern that this side effect may have a negative impact on adherence. Studies comparing the persistence of individual prostaglandin analogues suggest latanoprost may be associated with greater persistence than travoprost and bimatoprost.60,61 This may be related to the lower incidence of conjunctival hyperaemia seen with latanoprost, which in turn may improve tolerability.62,63 Latanoprost has also been associated with better persistence compared with other classes of antiglaucoma medication.64,65 Fixed-combinationlatanoprost/timolol has also been associated with good tolerabilityand persistence of use.35,66 In a prospective, observational, noninterventional study, patients were switched from a fixed/unfixed combination therapy or monotherapy to fixed-combination atanoprost/timolol. Of the 1,052 patients analysed, 97% remained on therapy throughout the six-month follow-up period.35

Summary
In the hypothetical situation where two different drugs are available with similar IOP lowering but different degrees of side effects, it would make sense to use the drug with fewer side effects. Conversely, for two drugs with reduced side effects but different efficacies, one would want to choose the drug with greater IOPlowering potential. With the introduction of fixed-combination drugs in glaucoma treatment, physicians have been offered many more options from which to choose when selecting a therapy for their patients, further increasing the difficulty of selecting a drug that is appropriate for each patient’s needs. However, the fixedcombination medications have demonstrated both improvements in IOP lowering and reductions in adverse effects, while offering a simple and convenient dosing schedule. With so many choices available to the physician and patient, the greatest challenge ahead will be to maintain patient compliance while keeping therapy reasonable and manageable for the patient.

Article Information:
Disclosure

Anton Hommer works as a consultant for Pfizer and Allergan, and has lectured for Allergan, Merck, Pfizer, Santen and Zeiss.

Correspondence

Anton Hommer, Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Medical University of Vienna, 1090 Vienna, Austria. E: a.hommer@aon.at

Support

Supported by Pfizer. The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of Pfizer.

Received

2009-04-22T00:00:00

References

  1. Quigley HA, Broman AT, The number of people with glaucoma worldwide in 2010 and 2020, Br J Ophthalmol, 2006;90:262–7.
  2. Cedrone C, Nucci C, Scuderi G, et al., Prevalence of blindness and low vision in an Italian population: a comparison with other European studies, Eye, 2006;20:661–7.
  3. American Academy of Ophthalmology, Primary Open- Angle Glaucoma, Preferred Practice Pattern, Secondary Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma, Preferred Practice Pattern, 2005.
  4. European Glaucoma Society, Terminology and Guidelines for Glaucoma, 3rd edition, Secondary Terminology and Guidelines for Glaucoma, 3rd edition, 2008.
  5. Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study Group and the European Glaucoma Prevention Study Group, The accuracy and clinical application of predictive models for primary open-angle glaucoma in ocular hypertensive individuals, Ophthalmology, 2008;115:2030–36.
  6. Gordon MO, Torri V, Miglior S, et al., Validated prediction model for the development of primary open-angle glaucoma in individuals with ocular hypertension, Ophthalmology, 2007;114:10–19.
  7. Nouri-Mahdavi K, Hoffman D, Coleman AL, et al., Predictive factors for glaucomatous visual field progression in the Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study, Ophthalmology, 2004;111:1627–35.
  8. The AGIS Investigators, The Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study (AGIS): 7. The relationship between control of intraocular pressure and visual field deterioration, Am J Ophthalmol, 2000;130:429–40.
  9. Collaborative Normal-Tension Glaucoma Study Group, The effectiveness of intraocular pressure reduction in the treatment of normal-tension glaucoma, Am J Ophthalmol, 1998;126:498–505.
  10. Kass MA, Heuer DK, Higginbotham EJ, et al., The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study: a randomized trial determines that topical ocular hypotensive medication delays or prevents the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma, Arch Ophthalmol, 2002;120:701–13, discussion 829–30.
  11. Heijl A, Leske MC, Bengtsson B, et al., Reduction of intraocular pressure and glaucoma progression: results from the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial, Arch Ophthalmol, 2002;120:1268–79.
  12. Mills RP, Janz NK, Wren PA, et al., Correlation of visual field with quality-of-life measures at diagnosis in the Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study (CIGTS), J Glaucoma, 2001;10:192–8.
  13. Leske MC, Heijl A, Hussein M, et al., Factors for glaucoma progression and the effect of treatment: the early manifest glaucoma trial, Arch Ophthalmol, 2003;121:48–56.
  14. Miglior S, Zeyen T, Pfeiffer N, et al., Results of the European Glaucoma Prevention Study, Ophthalmology, 2005;112:366–75.
  15. Osborne NN, Recent clinical findings with memantine should not mean that the idea of neuroprotection in glaucoma is abandoned, Acta Ophthalmol, 2009;87(4): 450–54.
  16. Wan Z, Woodward DF, Cornell CL, et al., Bimatoprost, prostamide activity, and conventional drainage, Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 2007;48:4107–15.
  17. Kastor JA (ed.), Arrhythmias, Philadelphia: WB Saunders Co, 1994.
  18. Charap AD, Shin DH, Petursson G, et al., Effect of varying drop size on the efficacy and safety of a topical beta blocker, Ann Ophthalmol, 1989;21:351–7.
  19. . Fraunfelder FT, Meyer SM, Systemic adverse reactions to glaucoma medications, Int Ophthalmol Clin, 1989;29:143–6.
  20. Lama PJ, Systemic adverse effects of beta-adrenergic blockers: an evidence-based assessment, Am J Ophthalmol, 2002;134:749–60.
  21. Vuori ML, Ali-Melkkila T, Kaila T, et al., Beta 1- and beta 2-antagonist activity of topically applied betaxolol and timolol in the systemic circulation, Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh), 1993;71:682–5.
  22. Zimmerman TJ, Baumann JD, Hetherington J, Jr., Side effects of timolol, Surv Ophthalmol, 1983;28(Suppl.): 243–51.
  23. Kirwan JF, Nightingale JA, Bunce C, et al., Beta blockers for glaucoma and excess risk of airways obstruction: population based cohort study, BMJ, 2002;325:1396–7.
  24. Schoene RB, Martin TR, Charan NB, et al., Timolol-induced bronchospasm in asthmatic bronchitis, JAMA, 1981;245: 1460–61.
  25. . Van Buskirk EM, Adverse reactions from timolol administration, Ophthalmology, 1980;87:447–50.
  26. van der Valk R, Webers CA, Schouten JS, et al., Intraocular pressure-lowering effects of all commonly used glaucoma drugs: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials, Ophthalmology, 2005;112:1177–85.
  27. Hollo G, The side effects of the prostaglandin analogues, Expert Opin Drug Saf, 2007;6:45–52.
  28. Schuman JS, Horwitz B, Choplin NT, et al., A 1-year study of brimonidine twice daily in glaucoma and ocular hypertension. A controlled, randomized, multicenter clinical trial. Chronic Brimonidine Study Group, Arch Ophthalmol, 1997;115:847–52.
  29. Strahlman E, Tipping R, Vogel R, A double-masked, randomized 1-year study comparing dorzolamide (Trusopt), timolol, and betaxolol. International Dorzolamide Study Group, Arch Ophthalmol, 1995;113:1009–16.
  30. Bucci MG, Intraocular pressure-lowering effects of latanoprost monotherapy versus latanoprost or pilocarpine in combination with timolol: a randomized, observer-masked multicenter study in patients with openangle glaucoma. Italian Latanoprost Study Group, J Glaucoma, 1999;8:24–30.
  31. Higginbotham EJ, Diestelhorst M, Pfeiffer N, et al., The efficacy and safety of unfixed and fixed combinations of latanoprost and other antiglaucoma medications, Surv Ophthalmol, 2002;47(Suppl. 1):S133–40.
  32. O’Connor DJ, Martone JF, Mead A, Additive intraocular pressure lowering effect of various medications with latanoprost, Am J Ophthalmol, 2002;133:836–7.
  33. Robin AL, Novack GD, Covert DW, et al., Adherence in glaucoma: objective measurements of once-daily and adjunctive medication use, Am J Ophthalmol, 2007;144: 533–40.
  34. Khouri AS, Realini T, Fechtner RD, Use of fixed-dose combination drugs for the treatment of glaucoma, Drugs Aging, 2007;24:1007–16.
  35. Dunker S, Schmucker A, Maier H, Tolerability, quality of life, and persistency of use in patients with glaucoma who are switched to the fixed combination of latanoprost and timolol, Adv Ther, 2007;24:376–86.
  36. Diestelhorst M, Almegard B, Comparison of two fixed combinations of latanoprost and timolol in open-angle glaucoma, Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol, 1998;236: 577–81.
  37. Konstas AG, Boboridis K, Tzetzi D, et al., Twenty-fourhour control with latanoprost-timolol-fixed combination therapy vs latanoprost therapy, Arch Ophthalmol, 2005;123: 898–902.
  38. Konstas AG, Lake S, Economou AI, et al., 24-Hour control with a latanoprost-timolol fixed combination vs timolol alone, Arch Ophthalmol, 2006;124:1553–7.
  39. Olander K, Zimmerman TJ, Downes N, et al., Switching from latanoprost to fixed-combination latanoprost-timolol: a 21-day, randomized, double-masked, active-control study in patients with glaucoma and ocular hypertension, Clin Ther, 2004;26:1619–29.
  40. European Latanoprost Fixed Combination Study Group, A comparison of the fixed combination of latanoprost and timolol with its individual components, Secondary A comparison of the fixed combination of latanoprost and timolol with its individual components, Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol, 2002;240:893–9.
  41. Diestelhorst M, Larsson LI, A 12 week study comparing the fixed combination of latanoprost and timolol with the concomitant use of the individual components in patients with open angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension, Br J Ophthalmol, 2004;88:199–203.
  42. Konstas AG, Banyai L, Blask KD, et al., Intraocular pressure and safety in glaucoma patients switching to latanoprost/timolol maleate fixed combination from mono- and adjunctive therapies, J Ocul Pharmacol Ther, 2004;20:375–82.
  43. Konstas AG, Kozobolis VP, Lallos N, et al., Daytime diurnal curve comparison between the fixed combinations of latanoprost 0.005%/timolol maleate 0.5% and dorzolamide 2%/timolol maleate 0.5%, Eye, 2004;18:1264–9.
  44. Shin DH, Feldman RM, Sheu WP, Efficacy and safety of the fixed combinations latanoprost/timolol versus dorzolamide/timolol in patients with elevated intraocular pressure, Ophthalmology, 2004;111:276–82.
  45. Garcia-Sanchez J, Rouland JF, Spiegel D, et al., A comparison of the fixed combination of latanoprost and timolol with the unfixed combination of brimonidine and timolol in patients with elevated intraocular pressure. A six month, evaluator masked, multicentre study in Europe, Br J Ophthalmol, 2004;88:877–83.
  46. Stewart WC, Stewart JA, Day D, et al., Efficacy and safety of timolol maleate/latanoprost fixed combination versus timolol maleate and brimonidine given twice daily, Acta Ophthalmol Scand, 2003;81:242–6.
  47. Magacho L, Reis R, Shetty RK, et al., Efficacy of latanoprost or fixed-combination latanoprost-timolol in patients switched from a combination of timolol and a nonprostaglandin medication, Ophthalmology, 2006;113: 442–5.
  48. Martinez A, Sanchez M, Bimatoprost/timolol fixed combination vs latanoprost/timolol fixed combination in open-angle glaucoma patients, Eye, 2009;23(4):810–18.
  49. Martinez-de-la-Casa JM, Castillo A, Garcia-Feijoo J, et al., Concomitant administration of travoprost and brinzolamide versus fixed latanoprost/timolol combined therapy: three-month comparison of efficacy and safety, Curr Med Res Opin, 2004;20:1333–9.
  50. Choudhri S, Wand M, Shields MB, A comparison of dorzolamide-timolol combination versus the concomitant drugs, Am J Ophthalmol, 2000;130:832–3.
  51. Strohmaier K, Snyder E, DuBiner H, et al., The efficacy and safety of the dorzolamide-timolol combination versus the concomitant administration of its components. Dorzolamide-Timolol Study Group, Ophthalmology, 1998;105:1936–44.
  52. Diestelhorst M, Larsson LI, A 12-week, randomized, double-masked, multicenter study of the fixed combination of latanoprost and timolol in the evening versus the individual components, Ophthalmology, 2006;113:70–76.
  53. Hutzelmann J, Owens S, Shedden A, et al., Comparison of the safety and efficacy of the fixed combination of dorzolamide/timolol and the concomitant administration of dorzolamide and timolol: a clinical equivalence study. International Clinical Equivalence Study Group, Br J Ophthalmol, 1998;82:1249–53.
  54. Konstas AG, Katsimpris IE, Kaltsos K, et al., Twenty-fourhour efficacy of the brimonidine/timolol fixed combination versus therapy with the unfixed components, Eye, 2008;22:1391–7.
  55. Schuman JS, Katz GJ, Lewis RA, et al., Efficacy and safety of a fixed combination of travoprost 0.004%/timolol 0.5% ophthalmic solution once daily for open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension, Am J Ophthalmol, 2005;140:242–50.
  56. Sherwood MB, Craven ER, Chou C, et al., Twice-daily 0.2% brimonidine-0.5% timolol fixed-combination therapy vs monotherapy with timolol or brimonidine in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension: a 12-month randomized trial, Arch Ophthalmol, 2006;124:1230–38.
  57. Buller AJ, Morgan LH, Hercules BL, Patients prefer oncedaily glaucoma drops, Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol, 2007;245:293–4.
  58. Nordstrom BL, Friedman DS, Mozaffari E, et al., Persistence and adherence with topical glaucoma therapy, Am J Ophthalmol, 2005;140:598–606.
  59. Novack GD, O’Donnell MJ, Molloy DW, New glaucoma medications in the geriatric population: efficacy and safety, J Am Geriatr Soc, 2002;50:956–62.
  60. Reardon G, Schwartz GF, Mozaffari E, Patient persistency with topical ocular hypotensive therapy in a managed care population, Am J Ophthalmol, 2004;137:S3–12.
  61. Reardon G, Schwartz GF, Mozaffari E, Patient persistency with ocular prostaglandin therapy: a population-based, retrospective study, Clin Ther, 2003;25:1172–85.
  62. Parrish RK, Palmberg P, Sheu WP, A comparison of latanoprost, bimatoprost, and travoprost in patients with elevated intraocular pressure: a 12-week, randomized, masked-evaluator multicenter study, Am J Ophthalmol, 2003;135:688–703.
  63. Honrubia F, Garcia-Sanchez J, Polo V, et al., Conjunctival hyperaemia with the use of latanoprost versus other prostaglandin analogues in patients with ocular hypertension or glaucoma: a meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials, Br J Ophthalmol, 2009;93:316–21.
  64. Schwartz GF, Reardon G, Mozaffari E, Persistency with latanoprost or timolol in primary open-angle glaucoma suspects, Am J Ophthalmol, 2004;137:S13–16.
  65. Reardon G, Schwartz GF, Mozaffari E, Patient persistency with pharmacotherapy in the management of glaucoma, Eur J Ophthalmol, 2003;13(Suppl. 4):S44–52.
  66. Hamacher T, Schinzel M, Scholzel-Klatt A, et al., Short term efficacy and safety in glaucoma patients changed to the latanoprost 0.005%/timolol maleate 0.5% fixed combination from monotherapies and adjunctive therapies, Br J Ophthalmol, 2004;88:1295–8.

Further Resources

Share this Article
Related Content In Glaucoma
  • Copied to clipboard!
    accredited arrow-down-editablearrow-downarrow_leftarrow-right-bluearrow-right-dark-bluearrow-right-greenarrow-right-greyarrow-right-orangearrow-right-whitearrow-right-bluearrow-up-orangeavatarcalendarchevron-down consultant-pathologist-nurseconsultant-pathologistcrosscrossdownloademailexclaimationfeedbackfiltergraph-arrowinterviewslinkmdt_iconmenumore_dots nurse-consultantpadlock patient-advocate-pathologistpatient-consultantpatientperson pharmacist-nurseplay_buttonplay-colour-tmcplay-colourAsset 1podcastprinter scenerysearch share single-doctor social_facebooksocial_googleplussocial_instagramsocial_linkedin_altsocial_linkedin_altsocial_pinterestlogo-twitter-glyph-32social_youtubeshape-star (1)tick-bluetick-orangetick-red tick-whiteticktimetranscriptup-arrowwebinar Sponsored Department Location NEW TMM Corporate Services Icons-07NEW TMM Corporate Services Icons-08NEW TMM Corporate Services Icons-09NEW TMM Corporate Services Icons-10NEW TMM Corporate Services Icons-11NEW TMM Corporate Services Icons-12Salary £ TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-01TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-02TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-03TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-04TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-05TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-06TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-07TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-08TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-09TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-10TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-11TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-12TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-13TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-14TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-15TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-16TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-17TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-18TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-19TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-20TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-21TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-22TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-23TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-24TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-25TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-26TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-27TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-28TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-29TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-30TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-31TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-32TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-33TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-34TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-35TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-36TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-37TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-38TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-39TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-40TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-41TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-42TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-43TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-44TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-45TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-46TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-47TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-48TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-49TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-50TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-51TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-52TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-53TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-54TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-55TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-56TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-57TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-58TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-59TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-60TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-61TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-62TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-63TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-64TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-65TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-66TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-67TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-68TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-69TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-70TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-71TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-72