Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2006
Improved systemic safety and risk-benefit ratio of topical 0.1% timolol hydrogel compared with 0.5% timolol aqueous solution in the treatment of glaucoma.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Uusitalo Hannu, Kähönen Mika, Ropo Auli, Mäenpää Jukka, Bjärnhall Gunilla, Hedenström Hans, Turjanmaa Väinö
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to compare the systemic safety and risk-benefit ratio of 0.1% timolol hydrogel and 0.5% aqueous timolol eye drops in the treatment of glaucoma.
METHODS: An 8-week randomised, double-blind, cross-over, multicentre study. A total of 25 patients with primary open-angle glaucoma, exfoliation glaucoma, or ocular hypertension was enrolled. After completing a wash-out period, patients were randomly chosen to receive either 0.1% timolol hydrogel once daily or 0.5% aqueous timolol eye drops twice daily. Intraocular pressure and heart rate during rest and exercise, head-up tilt test results, spirometry readings, and plasma concentrations of timolol were recorded. The risk-benefit ratio was determined by calculating the ratio between several heart rate endpoints and the change in intraocular pressure (IOP).
RESULTS: The mean drug-induced change in the peak heart rate during exercise was -13.5 beats/min (SD 7.6) in the 0.5% aqueous timolol group and -5.1 beats/min (SD 6.7) in the 0.1% timolol hydrogel group (P<0.001; 95% CI 4.06-12.18). There was no significant difference in the IOP-reducing efficacy between these compounds. The risk-benefit ratio was significantly improved when 0.1% timolol hydrogel was used, compared with 0.5% aqueous timolol in the exercise test. In the head-up tilt test the risk-benefit ratio was significantly improved at rest (P<0.05), at 1 min (P<0.05) and at 5 min (P<0.001) after patients had received 0.1% timolol hydrogel. There were, however, no differences in spirometry readings. After patients had been treated with 0.1% timolol hydrogel, plasma concentrations of timolol were 1/6 (at peak) and 1/50 (at trough) of those of 0.5% aqueous timolol.
CONCLUSIONS: Drug-induced changes in the peak heart rate, and head-up tilt test results as well as plasma concentrations of timolol, were significantly more pronounced after treatment with 0.5% aqueous timolol than with 0.1% timolol hydrogel. Because of the statistically similar IOP-reducing efficacy of these formulations the risk-benefit ratio was significantly improved when patients used 0.1% timolol hydrogel instead of 0.5% aqueous timolol.
METHODS: An 8-week randomised, double-blind, cross-over, multicentre study. A total of 25 patients with primary open-angle glaucoma, exfoliation glaucoma, or ocular hypertension was enrolled. After completing a wash-out period, patients were randomly chosen to receive either 0.1% timolol hydrogel once daily or 0.5% aqueous timolol eye drops twice daily. Intraocular pressure and heart rate during rest and exercise, head-up tilt test results, spirometry readings, and plasma concentrations of timolol were recorded. The risk-benefit ratio was determined by calculating the ratio between several heart rate endpoints and the change in intraocular pressure (IOP).
RESULTS: The mean drug-induced change in the peak heart rate during exercise was -13.5 beats/min (SD 7.6) in the 0.5% aqueous timolol group and -5.1 beats/min (SD 6.7) in the 0.1% timolol hydrogel group (P<0.001; 95% CI 4.06-12.18). There was no significant difference in the IOP-reducing efficacy between these compounds. The risk-benefit ratio was significantly improved when 0.1% timolol hydrogel was used, compared with 0.5% aqueous timolol in the exercise test. In the head-up tilt test the risk-benefit ratio was significantly improved at rest (P<0.05), at 1 min (P<0.05) and at 5 min (P<0.001) after patients had received 0.1% timolol hydrogel. There were, however, no differences in spirometry readings. After patients had been treated with 0.1% timolol hydrogel, plasma concentrations of timolol were 1/6 (at peak) and 1/50 (at trough) of those of 0.5% aqueous timolol.
CONCLUSIONS: Drug-induced changes in the peak heart rate, and head-up tilt test results as well as plasma concentrations of timolol, were significantly more pronounced after treatment with 0.5% aqueous timolol than with 0.1% timolol hydrogel. Because of the statistically similar IOP-reducing efficacy of these formulations the risk-benefit ratio was significantly improved when patients used 0.1% timolol hydrogel instead of 0.5% aqueous timolol.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Administration, TopicalAntihypertensive AgentsBiological AvailabilityCross-Over StudiesDouble-Blind MethodExercise TestFemaleGlaucoma, Open-AngleHeart RateHumansHydrogel, Polyethylene Glycol DimethacrylateIntraocular PressureMaleMiddle AgedOcular HypertensionOphthalmic SolutionsRisk AssessmentSpirometryTilt-Table TestTimololVisual Acuity