+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Short-term tolerability of once-daily timolol hemihydrate 0.5%, timolol maleate in sorbate 0.5%, and generic timolol maleate gel-forming solution 0.5% in glaucoma and/or ocular hypertension: a prospective, randomized, double-masked, active-controlled, three-period crossover pilot study



Short-term tolerability of once-daily timolol hemihydrate 0.5%, timolol maleate in sorbate 0.5%, and generic timolol maleate gel-forming solution 0.5% in glaucoma and/or ocular hypertension: a prospective, randomized, double-masked, active-controlled, three-period crossover pilot study



Clinical Therapeutics 31(10): 2063-2071



The aim of this study was to compare symptoms and anterior segment tolerability with short-term (3-day) administration of once-daily timolol hemihydrate 0.5%, timolol maleate in sorbate 0.5%, and generic timolol maleate gel-forming solution 0.5% in the treatment of glaucoma and/or ocular hypertension. In this prospective, randomized, double-masked, active-controlled, 3-period crossover pilot study, eligible patients had primary open-angle, pigment-dispersion, or exfoliation glaucoma, and/or ocular hypertension in > or = 1 eye; had a best corrected visual acuity of 1.0 or better in each eye, as measured using the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) visual acuity testing chart; were receiving 1 glaucoma medication; and had an untreated intraocular pressure (IOP) of < or = 28 mm Hg in both eyes after washout (if required) at visit 2 (day 0). Patients were assigned to receive, in randomized order, timolol hemihydrate 0.5%, timolol in sorbate 0.5%, or generic timolol gel-forming solution 0.5%, 1 drop each morning (approximately 8 am) in the qualified eye(s) (washout IOP < or = 28 mm Hg) for 3 days. Each treatment period was separated by a 7-day washout period. At all baseline and end-of-treatment study visits, patients completed a solicited symptom survey (used for the assessment of stinging or burning [grade 0 = none to 4 = severe] and blurred or dimmed vision [grade 0 = none to 4 = severe], among other parameters) and underwent ETDRS, Goldmann applanation tonometry, slit-lamp biomicroscopy, anterior segment staining (corneal, conjunctival nasal, and conjunctival temporal staining), conjunctival hyperemia assessment, measurement of tear breakup time, and Schirmer's testing with anesthesia. At end-of-treatment assessments, patients were questioned about adverse events. Thirty patients were enrolled (15 men, 15 women; mean [SD] age, 66.3 [8.9] years; white, 19 patients, black, 11; primary open-angle glaucoma, 17; ocular hypertension, 13). Mean (SD) stinging or burning grade was significantly greater with timolol in sorbate compared with timolol hemihydrate and timolol gel-forming solution (0.9 [0.9] vs 0.4 [0.6] and 0.2 [0.6], respectively; P < 0.001). The between-treatment differences on anterior segment staining, conjunctival hyperemia, tear breakup time, and Schirmer's testing with anesthesia were not significant, with the exception of the change from baseline in conjunctival nasal staining by count, which was significantly higher with timolol gel-forming solution compared with timolol hemihydrate and timolol in sorbate (3.1 [13.4] vs -2.9 [10.1] and -3.0 [8.0], respectively; P = 0.04). On the solicited symptom survey, timolol gel-forming solution was associated with a poorer mean score on blurred or dimmed vision compared with timolol hemihydrate and timolol in sorbate (0.3 [0.7] vs 0.1 [0.3] and 0.0 [0.2], respectively; P = 0.02). Mean best corrected ETDRS visual acuity immediately after instillation was significantly lower with timolol gel-forming solution compared with timolol hemihydrate and timolol in sorbate (49.6 [8.4] vs 53.0 [6.1] and 53.1 [6.7], respectively; P = 0.007). The mean 24-hour trough IOP did not differ significantly between the 3 treatments. In this pilot study that compared the symptoms and tolerability of once-daily timolol hemihydrate 0.5%, timolol in sorbate 0.5%, and timolol gel-forming solution 0.5% in these patients with glaucoma and/or ocular hypertension, short-term (3-day) administration of timolol in sorbate was associated with more stinging or burning compared with timolol hemihydrate and timolol gel-forming solution. Timolol gel-forming solution was associated with more postinstillation blurred or dimmed vision compared with timolol hemihydrate and timolol in sorbate.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 055761821

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 19922877

DOI: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2009.10.003


Related references

A 12-month, multicenter, randomized, double-masked, parallelgroup comparison of timolol-LA once daily and timolol maleate ophthalmic solution twice daily in the treatment of adults with glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Clinical Therapeutics 26(4): 541-551, 2004

Efficacy and tolerability of timolol maleate ophthalmic gel-forming solution versus timolol ophthalmic solution in adults with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension: A six-month, double-masked, multicenter study. Clinical Therapeutics 23(3): 440-450, 2001

A Comfort Survey of Timolol Hemihydrate 0.5% Solution Once or Twice Daily vs Timolol Maleate in Sorbate. Journal of Current Glaucoma Practice 7(1): 11-16, 2013

Timolol maleate 0.5% versus timolol maleate in gel forming solution 0.5% (Timolol GFS) in open angle glaucoma in India. Preliminary safety and efficacy study. Indian Journal of Ophthalmology 50(1): 21-23, 2002

Plasma timolol concentrations of timolol maleate: timolol gel-forming solution (TIMOPTIC-XE) once daily versus timolol maleate ophthalmic solution twice daily. Documenta Ophthalmologica. Advances in Ophthalmology 103(1): 73-79, 2001

Randomized, controlled, one year treatment comparison of timolol la given qd vs timolol maleate solution given bid in patients with ocular hypertension or open angle glaucoma. ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract Search & Program Planner : Abstract No 2203, 2003

Patient preference, efficacy, and compliance with timolol maleate ophthalmic gel-forming solution versus timolol maleate ophthalmic solution in patients with ocular hypertension or open-angle glaucoma. Clinical Therapeutics 21(1): 138-147, 1999

The effect of timolol maleate 05% gel and timolol maleate 05% solution twice daily versus placebo on pulmonary function in older primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertensive patients. IOVS 41(4): S515, 2000

Timolol hemihydrate vs timolol maleate to treat ocular hypertension and open-angle glaucoma. American Journal of Ophthalmology 121(5): 522-528, 1996

A comparison of the ocular hypotensive effect of dorzolamide hydrochloride/timolol maleate to that of the concomitant therapy with brimonidine tartate and timolol maleate in patients with ocular hypertension or primary open-angle glaucoma. IOVS 42(4): S822, 2001

Safety and efficacy of switching timolol maleate solution to timolol hemihydrate 05 percent given twice daily. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science 38(4 Part 1-2): S558, 1997

Timolol 0.5%/dorzolamide 2% fixed combination vs timolol maleate 0.5% and unoprostone 0.15% given twice daily to patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. American Journal of Ophthalmology 135(2): 138-143, 2003

Efficacy and safety of timolol hemihydrate 05% solution once daily versus timolol maleate gel 05% once daily added to latanoprost 0005%. IOVS 40(4): S513, 1999

A double-masked randomized crossover study comparing the effect of latanoprost/timolol and brimonidine/timolol fixed combination on intraocular pressure and ocular blood flow in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Journal of Ocular Pharmacology and Therapeutics 28(6): 569-575, 2012

The safety and efficacy of switching timolol maleate 0.5% solution to timolol hemihydrate 0.5% solution given twice daily. Journal of Ocular Pharmacology and Therapeutics 14(2): 129-135, 1998