Read Time: 3 mins

Treatment of Glaucoma with the Fixed Combination of Latanoprost 0.005% and Timolol 0.5%

Copy Link
Published Online: Feb 3rd 2011 European Ophthalmic Review, 2009,3(2):33-6 DOI:
Authors: Vicente Polo
Quick Links:
Article Information

Glaucoma is a serious eye disease that affects a large number of people and potentially leads to permanent visual impairment. Currently, the first-line therapy is the use of topical medications in an attempt to control intraocular pressure levels and prevent further damage to ganglion cells. Over the decades, a number of agents have been introduced; most recently, the development of fixed combination therapies has signalled a new era in treating glaucoma. Although these formulations provide advantages in terms of convenience and increased quality of life, they are also associated with certain drawbacks. The novel fixed combination of latanoprost 0.005% and timolol 0.5% has been studied extensively, and overall this medication has proved effective in controlling symptoms and has become a viable option for the treatment of glaucoma.


Glaucoma, latanoprost, timolol, combination therapy, intraocular pressure, prostaglandin analogues, alpha 2-adrenergic agonists, topical carbonic anhydrase inhibitors


Glaucoma is a progressive optic disc neuropathy that has become one of the leading causes of irreversible vision loss worldwide.1 It is characterised by optic disc damage and functional losses in the visual field, and is associated with an elevated intraocular pressure (IOP). If left untreated, glaucoma will cause progressive injury to retinal ganglion cells and their axons, damaging the optic nerve and ultimately leading to permanent blindness (see Figure 1). In the US, over 2 million adults suffer from glaucoma, and with a growing ageing population this number is expected to rise to over 3 million by 2020.2 Estimates of the incidence of glaucoma around the world have shown comparable or higher prevalence depending on the region investigated.3

Due to the severe consequences of glaucoma, early treatment is critical for preventing further disease progression. However, with no dramatic or painful symptoms, early detection is challenging. Oncediagnosed, treatment is administered to reduce the IOP to an acceptable level in an attempt to minimise further damage.

Currently, topical medication is the first-line therapy against this disease, followed by laser trabeculoplasty and/or surgery.4 Specifically, prostaglandin analogues (PGAs) have become the firstline agents in glaucoma treatment due to their potency and safety.5 However, it was recently found that nearly 40% of patients require two or more medications to achieve a modest target IOP reduction.6 As a result, fixed or unfixed combination therapies are now often used in the management of glaucoma and are recommended when single agents prove inadequate for reaching acceptable IOP levels.7

History of Glaucoma Therapies
Research and development of fixed combinations of glaucoma treatments began as early as the 1960s. Nevertheless, the introduction of new medications since that time has been hindered by many issues, including the different pharmacokinetics of the various drugs, the cumulative nature of adverse effects when using multiple products and the potential negative drug–drug interactions.8 To be a viable treatment option for glaucoma, a fixed combination must show a greater reduction in IOP than either of the two component drugs as monotherapies and similar efficacy and safety profiles to the concomitant use of the two drugs.

Despite these obstacles, several fixed-dose combination therapies have emerged over the past few decades. Originally, adrenergic and cholinergic agents were the only classes of drug available for topical treatment and, during that time, it was found that the IOP-reducing effects of these drugs were additive.9,10 Furthermore, a number of patients required both medications to adequately control their disease; as a result, interest arose in combining the two components. Pilocarpine/epinephrine was the first fixed combination to be available commercially, in the early 1970s. Since then, the β-blocker timolol has been introduced and has become the first-line treatment for glaucoma, leading to the development of such combinations as pilocarpine/timolol and epinephrine/timolol in the 1980s.11,12

As research progressed, PGAs overtook timolol as first-line therapy due to their potency and safety. However, β-blockers remain the most popular class of drug for both fixed and unfixed adjunctive therapy with PGAs. Various fixed combination drugs have been approved in the last decade in different countries, most of which contain timolol. Examples include timolol 0.5% in combination with dorzolamide 2%, latanoprost 0.005%, travoprost 0.004%, bimatoprost 0.03% or brimonidine 0.2%.8

Studies of Unfixed and Fixed Combination Treatments
As the administration of combination therapies became more popular, many studies emerged to test the efficacies of both unfixed and fixed treatments.

While the β-blocker timolol remains the most commonly used agent for additive therapy in glaucoma, other classes of drug can be prescribed, such as alpha 2-adrenergic agonists and topical carbonic anhydrase inhibitors (TCAIs). A study was conducted to compare these three categories of drug and attempt to determine their relative efficacies as adjunctive therapies.13 Using one eye from each of 73 patients who were responding inadequately to latanoprost treatment alone, O’Connor et al. performed a retrospective review to evaluate the different classes in combination with this PGA. When administered twice or three times daily (BID or TID, respectively), the TCAI dorzolamide lowered IOP to a greater extent than the addition of β-blockers or the alpha 2 agonist brimonidine. When added to latanoprost, dorzolamide reduced IOP by a further 3.9mmHg (19.7%; p<0.001) compared with 2.0mmHg (12.3%; p<0.001) for β-blockers and 2.0mmHg (9.3%; p=0.0011) for brimonidine.13 This study revealed that addition of medications other than β-blockers to PGAs may prove to be effective as well. By contrast, in a randomised crossover trial Konstas et al.14 demonstrated that dorzolamide andbrimonidine purite had equal additional hypotensive effects over a 24-hour period.

Overall, studies with alpha-adrenergic agonists and TCAIs have shown variable results in unfixed combinations with PGAs. While some investigations have demonstrated the addition of brimonidine tartrate or brimonidine purite BID to latanoprost to be effective in lowering IOP by a further 2.1–3.1mmHg compared with latanoprost alone,14,15 others have demonstrated different results with travoprost.16,17 These studies showed that brimonidine adjunctive therapy with travoprost was less effective in reducing IOP than brinzolamide or timolol with travoprost. Furthermore, the addition of dorzolamide to latanoprost resulted in an additional 2.8mmHg (15%) reduction in IOP compared with latanoprost alone.18 The combination of brinzolamide with travoprost led to IOP reductions of 2.7–4.2mmHg.16,19

Fixed combination therapies are the most recent addition to the assortment of available glaucoma treatments. Many data have been collected for these drugs with comparisons against the separate components as monotherapies and the concomitant use of the constituent drugs in an unfixed manner. Although no clear result has been revealed in terms of an optimal treatment method, fixed combinations do provide patients with several advantageous features.

Advantages of Fixed Combination Therapy
Although in general combining therapies has proved effective in glaucoma over the years, there are certain advantages to using a pre-prepared fixed combination treatment. The primary benefit of these medicines is convenience, as a single drug can replace numerous bottles and multiple drops at various times of day. This reduces the burden of therapy and improves patient quality of life. Ease of medication administration is also associated with better compliance, which is important since adherence to a treatment regime is crucial for its success.20

In addition to improving convenience, using fewer drops also avoids exposing the ocular surface to excessive preservatives such as benzalkonium chloride, which has been associated with toxicity to the eye.21–23 Furthermore, such preservatives can potentially lead to poor surgical outcomes for patients who eventually require filtering surgery.23,24 Instillation of sequential topical medications over a short period of time (less than five minutes) also results in the suboptimal absorption of each medication. This washout effect may be minimised or eliminated completely with fixed combination therapies. Finally, fewer solutions may lower the cost of treatment for patients with prescription drug benefits.

Efficacy of the Fixed Combination of Latanoprost 0.005% and Timolol 0.5%
The fixed combination of latanoprost 0.005% and timolol 0.5% (Xalacom™, Pfizer) was first approved in the EU in 2000 and is now available in several countries. It is given once daily and is indicated for IOP reduction in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension who are inadequately treated with β-blockers, PGAs or other IOP-lowering agents and when Xalacom is considered appropriate. Xalacom is contraindicated in patients with reactive airway disease, cardiovascular issues and known hypersensitivity to the product ingredients. This combination has been investigated by a number of researchers to determine its efficacy compared with the constituent drugs as monotherapies and the concomitant administration of the two components as an unfixed combination. The results of some of these studies are summarised in Table 1.5 For the most part, the fixed combination of latanoprost 0.005% and timolol 0.5% showed superior efficacy compared with either of the monotherapies or the unfixed combination. The reductions shown with the fixed combination were more substantial with timolol monotherapy than with latanoprost monotherapy. Therefore, further research is needed to clarify the relative efficacies of these different therapy regimens.

Recently, Polo et al. conducted a study to evaluate the efficacy of the fixed combination of latanoprost 0.005% and timolol 0.5%.4 A total of 105 patients who had a best corrected visual acuity better than 20/200 were recruited prospectively from a glaucoma unit. Thesesubjects had also been diagnosed with unilateral or bilateral primary open-angle or pseudoexfoliative glaucoma. Eligible participants were categorised based on their previous treatment regimens and clinical status: latanoprost 0.005% monotherapy once daily (OD) with insufficient IOP level (previous latanoprost group, n=33), timolol 0.5% BID and insufficient IOP level (previous timolol group, n=44) and unfixed combination of latanoprost 0.005% and timolol 0.5% with optimal IOP level (previous unfixed group, n=28). All subjects switched from their previous treatment regimens to the fixed combination of latanoprost 0.005% and timolol 0.5% OD, administered at approximately 8pm. One eye from each participant was randomly chosen for examination at each of three visits: one month prior to the start of the study (baseline day) and after one and three months of using the new treatment; mean IOP was calculated after each visit based on measurements made at 8am, 12 noon and 4pm. There were no significant differences in the mean baseline IOPs between the previous latanoprost and previous timolol groups. However, the group previously receiving unfixed combinations of medication had a lower mean baseline IOP level than either of the other two groups (p<0.05).4

The results showing the effect of the fixed combination therapy on IOP in the three groups are summarised in Table 2.4 Both previous monotherapy groups showed statistically significant improvements in IOP levels compared with baseline after switching to the fixed combination treatment. These differences were seen at all three timepoints after one and three months of follow-up. For the previous latanoprost group, the mean diurnal IOP reduced by 5.48mmHg (23.5%) and 4.71mmHg (19.5%) after one and three months of therapy with the fixed combination, respectively. The previous timolol group showed slightly more favourable results, with mean diurnal reductions of 5.48mmHg (26.14%) and 5.16mmHg (24.25%) at one and three months, respectively. In the group previously receiving an unfixed combination of medication, 79% (22 of 28) of the patients showed a reduction in their mean diurnal IOP or an increase within 1mmHg relative to baseline. However, the mean reductions observed were not statistically significant and three patients developed an IOP higher than the target.4

Based on these findings, it is advisable for patients with inadequate IOP control with monotherapy to switch to the fixed combination treatment. Furthermore, patients already exhibiting adequate IOP levels with concomitant medications may benefit from a change to the fixed therapy as it could lead to an improved quality of life and better compliance due to its simpler treatment schedule. However, if the new treatment fails to maintain target IOP levels in these patients during follow-up, a return to the concomitant treatment should be made.

Disadvantages of Fixed Combination Therapy
As with any type of medication, there are disadvantages associated with the use of fixed combination topical IOP-lowering drugs. First, there is no clear evidence confirming the superiority of such fixed combinations; in fact, at certain time-points, fixed combinations have appeared less effective than their individual components. Furthermore, when using fixed combinations physicians cannot individualise treatment by varying the doses of the components. For instance, some patients may benefit from a timolol 0.25% solution, but all fixed solutions contain timolol 0.5%, leading to over-dosing in these patients. Similarly, the drugs cannot be split to optimise treatment times. These fixed combinations are also limited by thefact that prostaglandin medications are best administered in the evening whereas β-blockers are recommended for morning administration. A fixed combination of PGA/β-blocker makes this separation of doses impossible.

Summary and Conclusion
Glaucoma is a severe eye disease that exhibits progressive loss of ganglion cells and may eventually lead to permanent visual impairment. Currently, the only effective means to manage this disease is by maintaining an acceptable IOP level; the first-line treatment used to accomplish this is the administration of drugs. Most recently, the introduction of fixed combination therapies, such as the fixed combination of latanoprost 0.005% and timolol 0.5%, has allowed patients to receive therapy in a more convenient manner than previous medication regimens, thereby improving their quality of life and making it easier to comply with the treatment schedule. In the majority of cases, this medication has proved effective and has become a viable option for the treatment of glaucoma.

Article Information:

The author has no conflicts of interest to declare.


Vicente Polo, Miguel Servet University Hospital, Department of Ophthalmology, Isabel la Catolica 1–3, 50.009, Zaragoza, Spain. E:


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




  1. Pizzarello L, Abiose A, Ffytche T, et al., VISION 2020: The Right to Sight: a global initiative to eliminate avoidable blindness, Arch Ophthalmol, 2004;122:615–20.
  2. Friedman DS, Wolfs RC, O’Colmain BJ, et al., Prevalence of open-angle glaucoma among adults in the United States, Arch Ophthalmol, 2004;122:532–8.
  3. Quigley HA, Broman AT, The number of people with glaucoma worldwide in 2010 and 2020, Br J Ophthalmol, 2006;90:262–7.
  4. Polo V, Larrosa JM, Ferreras A, et al., Effect on diurnal intraocular pressure of the fixed combination of latanoprost 0.005% and timolol 0.5% administered in the evening in glaucoma, Ann Ophthalmol (Skokie), 2008;40: 157–62.
  5. Tabet R, Stewart WC, Feldman R, et al., A review of additivity to prostaglandin analogs: fixed and unfixed combinations, Surv Ophthalmol, 2008;53(Suppl. 1):S85–92.
  6. 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.
  7. Hoyng PF, van Beek LM, Pharmacological therapy for glaucoma: a review, Drugs, 2000;59:411–34.
  8. Khouri AS, Realini T, Fechtner RD, Use of fixed-dose combination drugs for the treatment of glaucoma, Drugs Aging, 2007;24:1007–16.
  9. Krieglstein GK, Leydhecker W, The pressure reducing effects of pilocarpin in combination with Dipivalylepinephrine in glaucoma simplex, Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd, 1979;175:86–90.
  10. Trotta N, O’Connor R, Efficacy of a combination solution of epinephrine and pilocarpine, Eye Ear Nose Throat Mon, 1971;50:350–52.
  11. Hovding G, Aasved H, Timolol/pilocarpine combination eye drops in open angle glaucoma and in ocular hypertension. A controlled randomized study, Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh), 1987;65:594–601.
  12. Knupp JA, Shields MB, Mandell AI, et al., Combined timolol and epinephrine therapy for open angle glaucoma, Surv Ophthalmol, 1983;28(Suppl.):280–85.
  13. O’Connor DJ, Martone JF, Mead A, Additive intraocular pressure lowering effect of various medications with latanoprost, Am J Ophthalmol, 2002;133:836–7.
  14. Konstas AG, Karabatsas CH, Lallos N, et al., 24-hour intraocular pressures with brimonidine purite versus dorzolamide added to latanoprost in primary open-angle glaucoma subjects, Ophthalmology, 2005;112:603–8.
  15. Erdogan H, Toker I, Arici MK, et al., A short-term study of the additive effect of latanoprost 0.005% and brimonidine 0.2%, Jpn J Ophthalmol, 2003;47:473–8.
  16. Feldman RM, Tanna AP, Gross RL, et al., Comparison of the ocular hypotensive efficacy of adjunctive brimonidine 0.15% or brinzolamide 1% in combination with travoprost 0.004%, Ophthalmology, 2007;114:1248–54.
  17. Reis R, Queiroz CF, Santos LC, et al., A randomized, investigator-masked, 4-week study comparing timolol maleate 0.5%, brinzolamide 1%, and brimonidine tartrate 0.2% as adjunctive therapies to travoprost 0.004% in adults with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension, Clin Ther, 2006;28:552–9.
  18. Kimal Arici M, Topalkara A, Guler C, Additive effect of latanoprost and dorzolamide in patients with elevated intraocular pressure, Int Ophthalmol, 1998;22:37–42.
  19. Franks W, Ocular hypotensive efficacy and safety of brinzolamide ophthalmic suspension 1% added to travoprost ophthalmic solution 0.004% therapy in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension, Curr Med Res Opin, 2006;22:1643–9.
  20. 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.
  21. Baudouin C, Pisella PJ, Fillacier K, et al., Ocular surface inflammatory changes induced by topical antiglaucoma drugs: human and animal studies, Ophthalmology, 1999;106:556–63.
  22. Baudouin C, de Lunardo C, Short-term comparative study of topical 2% carteolol with and without benzalkonium chloride in healthy volunteers, Br J Ophthalmol, 1998;82: 39–42.
  23. Broadway DC, Grierson I, O’Brien C, et al., Adverse effects of topical antiglaucoma medication. I. The conjunctival cell profile, Arch Ophthalmol, 1994;112:1437–45.
  24. Lavin MJ, Wormald RP, Migdal CS, et al., The influence of prior therapy on the success of trabeculectomy, Arch Ophthalmol, 1990;108:1543–8.
  25. 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.
  26. Pfeiffer N, A comparison of the fixed combination of latanoprost and timolol with its individual components, Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol, 2002;240:893–9.
  27. Higginbotham EJ, Feldman R, Stiles M, et al., Latanoprost and timolol combination therapy vs monotherapy: oneyear randomized trial, Arch Ophthalmol, 2002;120:915–22.
  28. 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.
  29. 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.
  30. Konstas AG, Boboridis K, Tzetzi D, et al., Twenty-four-hour control with latanoprost-timolol-fixed combination therapyvs latanoprost therapy, Arch Ophthalmol, 2005;123:898–902.
  31. 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.
  32. 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.
  33. 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.

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