Eye (London, England) · 1999
The comparative ocular hypotensive effect of apraclonidine with timolol maleate in exfoliation versus primary open-angle glaucoma patients.
Клиническое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Konstas A G, Maltezos A, Mantziris D A, Sine C S, Stewart W C
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare the effect of adding apraclonidine 0.5% to timolol maleate 0.5% in patients with exfoliation versus primary open-angle glaucoma. Since exfoliation glaucoma is known to demonstrate higher pressures than primary open-angle glaucoma on timolol maleate therapy alone, the authors wished to determine whether apraclonidine equalised the intraocular pressure (IOP) between these two glaucomas when added to timolol maleate.
METHODS: We age-matched 30 consecutive exfoliation and 30 primary open-angle glaucoma patients who had an IOP > or = 22 mmHg on timolol maleate alone. Patients underwent IOP diurnal curve testing on timolol maleate twice daily alone and, 2 months later, following the addition of apraclonidine 0.5% three times daily. Statistical analysis of the IOP at each time point was by an unpaired t-test between groups. A paired t-test was used to evaluate the reduction in IOP from baseline within groups after the addition of apraclonidine.
RESULTS: On timolol maleate alone, exfoliation patients had a higher mean IOP at 06:00 and 10:00 hours as well as a higher peak, range and standard deviation of the IOP compared with primary open-angle glaucoma patients (p < 0.05). Following the addition of apraclonidine the mean, peak and range of IOP were statistically similar between groups and only the standard deviations remained higher in the exfoliation glaucoma group (p < 0.001). The mean diurnal IOP after apraclonidine was added was 20.5 +/- 7.0 mmHg in the exfoliation glaucoma group and 20.0 +/- 3.4 mmHg in the primary open-angle glaucoma group, which was not significantly different between groups (p = 0.73).
CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that apraclonidine 0.5% used adjunctively with timolol maleate 0.5% solution is associated generally with similar IOP control in exfoliation and primary open-angle glaucoma patients.
METHODS: We age-matched 30 consecutive exfoliation and 30 primary open-angle glaucoma patients who had an IOP > or = 22 mmHg on timolol maleate alone. Patients underwent IOP diurnal curve testing on timolol maleate twice daily alone and, 2 months later, following the addition of apraclonidine 0.5% three times daily. Statistical analysis of the IOP at each time point was by an unpaired t-test between groups. A paired t-test was used to evaluate the reduction in IOP from baseline within groups after the addition of apraclonidine.
RESULTS: On timolol maleate alone, exfoliation patients had a higher mean IOP at 06:00 and 10:00 hours as well as a higher peak, range and standard deviation of the IOP compared with primary open-angle glaucoma patients (p < 0.05). Following the addition of apraclonidine the mean, peak and range of IOP were statistically similar between groups and only the standard deviations remained higher in the exfoliation glaucoma group (p < 0.001). The mean diurnal IOP after apraclonidine was added was 20.5 +/- 7.0 mmHg in the exfoliation glaucoma group and 20.0 +/- 3.4 mmHg in the primary open-angle glaucoma group, which was not significantly different between groups (p = 0.73).
CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that apraclonidine 0.5% used adjunctively with timolol maleate 0.5% solution is associated generally with similar IOP control in exfoliation and primary open-angle glaucoma patients.