American journal of ophthalmology · 1997
Efficacy of carteolol hydrochloride 1% vs timolol maleate 0.5% in patients with increased intraocular pressure. Nocturnal Investigation of Glaucoma Hemodynamics Trial Study Group.
Клиническое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка 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.
Stewart W C, Cohen J S, Netland P A, Weiss H, Nussbaum L L
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To evaluate the ocular hypotensive effect and safety of carteolol hydrochloride 1% vs timolol maleate 0.5%.
METHODS: One hundred seventy-six patients with ocular hypertension or primary open-angle glaucoma were randomly assigned to receive either carteolol 1% twice a day or timolol maleate 0.5% solution twice a day in a randomized, double-masked, multicenter, parallel-group, active-control comparison trial during a 3-month period.
RESULTS: After 12 weeks, carteolol 1% reduced the mean +/- SE intraocular pressure from 25.0 +/- 0.3 to 19.5 +/- 0.3 mm Hg; timolol maleate 0.5% reduced the mean intraocular pressure from 25.2 +/- 0.3 to 19.6 +/- 0.3 mm Hg. The mean difference in trough intraocular pressure between carteolol and timolol maleate of -0.14 mm Hg was not significantly (P = .745) different (95% confidence limits, -0.97 to 0.70 mm Hg). Trough pulse and blood pressure also showed no consistent statistically significant differences between groups. The 2-hour postdose pulse, however, demonstrated a greater decrease in the timolol maleate than in the carteolol group (P < .001). Systemic and ocular signs and symptoms were similar between the groups except that the number of treatment-emergent reports of bradycardia was greater in the timolol maleate group (P = .039), and the carteolol group reported fewer ocular symptoms than the timolol maleate group did (P < .01).
CONCLUSIONS: Both carteolol 1% and timolol maleate 0.5% are highly effective in lowering intraocular pressure when measured at the end of the dosing interval. Carteolol 1% demonstrates an ocular hypotensive effect and safety profile similar to those of timolol maleate 0.5% solution.
METHODS: One hundred seventy-six patients with ocular hypertension or primary open-angle glaucoma were randomly assigned to receive either carteolol 1% twice a day or timolol maleate 0.5% solution twice a day in a randomized, double-masked, multicenter, parallel-group, active-control comparison trial during a 3-month period.
RESULTS: After 12 weeks, carteolol 1% reduced the mean +/- SE intraocular pressure from 25.0 +/- 0.3 to 19.5 +/- 0.3 mm Hg; timolol maleate 0.5% reduced the mean intraocular pressure from 25.2 +/- 0.3 to 19.6 +/- 0.3 mm Hg. The mean difference in trough intraocular pressure between carteolol and timolol maleate of -0.14 mm Hg was not significantly (P = .745) different (95% confidence limits, -0.97 to 0.70 mm Hg). Trough pulse and blood pressure also showed no consistent statistically significant differences between groups. The 2-hour postdose pulse, however, demonstrated a greater decrease in the timolol maleate than in the carteolol group (P < .001). Systemic and ocular signs and symptoms were similar between the groups except that the number of treatment-emergent reports of bradycardia was greater in the timolol maleate group (P = .039), and the carteolol group reported fewer ocular symptoms than the timolol maleate group did (P < .01).
CONCLUSIONS: Both carteolol 1% and timolol maleate 0.5% are highly effective in lowering intraocular pressure when measured at the end of the dosing interval. Carteolol 1% demonstrates an ocular hypotensive effect and safety profile similar to those of timolol maleate 0.5% solution.