Six-Month Comparison of Bimatoprost Once-Daily and Twice-Daily with Timolol Twice-Daily in Patients with Elevated Intraocular Pressure
Abstract
The efficacy and safety of bimatoprost, a member of a new class of pharmacological agents called prostamides, were compared with the efficacy and safety of timolol in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Pooled 6-month results from two ongoing, multicenter, randomized, double-masked, clinical trials were analyzed. Patients were randomized in a 2:2:1 ratio to treatment with bimatoprost 0.03% once a day ([QD] n = 474), bimatoprost 0.03% twice a day ([BID] n = 483), or timolol 0.5% BID (n = 241). Scheduled visits were at prestudy, baseline, week 2, week 6, month 3, and month 6. The primary outcome measure was in diurnal intraocular pressure ([IOP] 8 AM, 10 AM, 4 PM, 8 PM). Bimatoprost QD provided significantly greater mean IOP reductions from baseline than timolol at every time of the day and at each study visit (p </=.05). BID dosing of bimatoprost also provided significantly greater mean IOP reductions than timolol at most timepoints, but was not as effective as QD dosing. The IOP lowering provided by bimatoprost QD was sustained for 6 months. At month 6, the mean IOP reduction from baseline at 10 AM was 8.1 mm Hg (33%) with bimatoprost QD, 6.3 mm Hg (26%) with bimatoprost BID, and 5.6 mm Hg (23%) with timolol. Low target pressures were achieved by a significantly higher percentage of patients in the bimatoprost QD group than in the timolol group. At 10 AM (peak timolol effect) at month 6, IOP </= 17 mm Hg was achieved by 63.9% of bimatoprost QD patients, compared with 37.3% of timolol patients (p <.001). Bimatoprost was safe and well-tolerated, with few discontinuations due to adverse events. The most frequent side effect was trace-to-mild conjunctival hyperemia. Changes in iris pigmentation were reported in 1.1% of bimatoprost patients. There were no other significant findings in slit lamp examinations, ophthalmoscopy, visual acuity, or visual fields, and systemic safety parameters were also unaffected. Together these results indicate that bimatoprost QD is statistically and clinically superior to timolol in lowering IOP, and is safe and well-tolerated in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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].”
From Bimatoprost for Eyelash Growth in Japanese Subjects: Two Multicenter Controlled Studies (2014) · cites this paper as [13]
Cites
Brandt, J. D., VanDenburgh, A. M., Chen, K., & Whitcup, S. M. (2001) · Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/s0161-6420(01)00584-x · Cited by 152 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Bimatoprost for Eyelash Growth in Japanese Subjects: Two Multicenter Controlled Studies
Harii, K., Arase, S., Tsuboi, R., Weng, E., Daniels, S., & VanDenburgh, A. (2014) · Aesthetic Plastic Surgery · doi:10.1007/s00266-014-0293-7 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
Zaky, M. S., Hashem, O. A., Mahfouz, S. M., & Elsaie, M. L. (2023) · Archives of Dermatological Research · doi:10.1007/s00403-023-02679-2 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
- Authors
- Sherwood, M., & Brandt, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Florida Health (US)
- University of California, Davis (US)
- Venue
- Survey of Ophthalmology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2001-05
- Volume
- 45
- Pages
- S361-S368
- ISSN
- 0039-6257 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2018408210
- Cited by
- 197
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 21.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Survey 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
- timolol, prostamide, intraocular pressure, ocular hypertension, glaucoma, once-daily dosing, twice-daily dosing, intraocular pressure reduction, conjunctival hyperemia, iris pigmentation, adverse events, drug safety, glaucoma treatment comparison, beta-blockers, prostamide analogues, aqueous humor outflow
- MeSH terms
- Bimatoprost, Adrenergic beta-Antagonists, Amides, Antihypertensive Agents, Cloprostenol, Conjunctiva, Double-Blind Method, Eye Color, Female, Glaucoma, Humans, Hyperemia, Intraocular Pressure, Iris, Lipids, Male, Middle Aged, Ocular Hypertension, Ophthalmic Solutions, Safety, Timolol
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