Cited by 199Glaucoma and retinal disordersDrug-Induced Ocular ToxicityBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies

One-Year, Randomized Study Comparing Bimatoprost and Timolol in Glaucoma and Ocular Hypertension

Higginbotham, Eve J.·2002·Archives of Ophthalmology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare bimatoprost with timolol maleate in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension. METHODS: In 2 identical, multicenter, randomized, double-masked, 1-year clinical trials, patients were treated with 0.03% bimatoprost once daily (QD) (n = 474), 0.03% bimatoprost twice daily (BID) (n = 483), or 0.5% timolol maleate BID (n = 241). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Diurnal intraocular pressure (IOP) at 8 AM, 10 AM, and 4 PM and safety variables (IOP was also measured at 8 PM at selected sites). RESULTS: Bimatoprost QD provided significantly lower mean IOP than timolol at every time of the day at each study visit (P<.001). This was also true for bimatoprost BID at most time points, but the efficacy was not as good as that of the QD regimen. At 10 AM (peak timolol effect) at month 12, the mean reduction in IOP from baseline was 7.6 mm Hg (30%) with bimatoprost and 5.3 mm Hg (21%) with timolol (P<.001). A significantly higher percentage of patients receiving bimatoprost QD (58%) than timolol (37%) achieved IOPs at or below 17 mm Hg (10 AM, month 12; P<.001). The most common adverse effect with bimatoprost was hyperemia (significantly higher with bimatoprost QD than timolol; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Bimatoprost QD provides sustained IOP lowering superior to timolol or bimatoprost BID and achieves low target IOPs in significantly more patients.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archopht.120.10.1286

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Eyelash growth is an adverse effect of bimatoprost use in clinical trials of patients with glaucoma and ocular hypertension.

    “Eyelash growth was noted as an adverse effect of bimatoprost use in clinical trials of patients with glaucoma and ocular hypertension [9, 10, 12, 13], an effect thought to arise by the interaction of bimatoprost with prostamide-sensitive receptors in hair follicles [14].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Higginbotham, E. J.
Affiliations
University of Maryland, Baltimore (US)
Corresponding author
Higginbotham, Eve J.
Venue
Archives of Ophthalmology
Published
2002-10-01
Volume
120
Issue
10
Pages
1286
ISSN
0003-9950 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2064230716
Cited by
199
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 11
FWCI
15.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Archives of Ophthalmology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Glaucoma and retinal disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Drug-Induced Ocular Toxicity
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Blood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Keywords
bimatoprost, timolol maleate, glaucoma, ocular hypertension, intraocular pressure reduction, once-daily dosing, twice-daily dosing, diurnal IOP variation, hyperemia, adverse effects
MeSH terms
Bimatoprost, Adrenergic beta-Antagonists, Aged, Amides, Cloprostenol, Double-Blind Method, Drug Administration Schedule, Female, Glaucoma, Humans, Hyperemia, Intraocular Pressure, Lipids, Male, Middle Aged, Ocular Hypertension, Safety, Timolol, Treatment Outcome

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review