CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 152Glaucoma and retinal disordersDrug-Induced Ocular ToxicityBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies

Comparison of once- or twice-daily bimatoprost with twice-daily timolol in patients with elevated IOP

Brandt, James D, VanDenburgh, Amanda M, Chen, Kuankuan, Whitcup, Scott M·2001·Ophthalmology
DOI 10.1016/s0161-6420(01)00584-x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objective To compare the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of bimatoprost 0.03% instilled once daily or twice daily with timolol 0.5% twice daily. Design Multicenter, 3-month, randomized, double-masked, interventional comparison trial. Participants Patients diagnosed with ocular hypertension or glaucoma (n = 596). Intervention Patients received bimatoprost 0.03% ophthalmic solution once daily (8 PM, with vehicle control at 8 AM), bimatoprost 0.03% twice daily (8 AM; 8 PM), or timolol 0.5% twice daily (8 AM; 8 PM) in an uneven 2:2:1 randomization. Scheduled visits were at prestudy, baseline (day 0), weeks 2 and 6, and month 3. Intraocular pressure (IOP) was measured at 8 AM (predose), 10 AM, and 4 PM. Main outcome measures The primary outcome measure was reduction in IOP in the eye with higher IOP at baseline. Secondary outcome measures included safety variables (adverse events, ophthalmoscopy, biomicroscopy, iris pigmentation, laser-flare meter, visual acuity, visual fields, heart rate, blood pressure, blood chemistry, hematology, and urinalysis). Results At month 3, the mean reduction in IOP from baseline at 8 AM was 9.16 mmHg (35.2%) with bimatoprost once daily, 7.78 mmHg (30.4%) with bimatoprost twice daily, and 6.74 mmHg (26.2%) with timolol twice daily. At all follow-up visits, mean IOP reductions were significantly greater in the bimatoprost once daily group than in the timolol group at each time point (8 AM, 10 AM, and 4 PM; P < 0.001). Twice-daily dosing of bimatoprost also provided significantly greater mean reductions in IOP than timolol at most time points but was not as effective as once-daily dosing. Bimatoprost was associated with significantly more hyperemia and eyelash growth than timolol, whereas timolol was associated with significantly more burning and stinging sensation in eyes. Overall, bimatoprost was well tolerated with few discontinuations because of adverse events. Conclusions Bimatoprost 0.03% once daily was safe and statistically superior to timolol 0.5% twice daily in lowering IOP in patients with ocular hypertension or glaucoma. Bimatoprost given once daily consistently provided IOP reductions approximately 2 to 3 mmHg greater than those provided by timolol. Once-daily dosing of bimatoprost, 0.03%, demonstrated greater IOP-lowering effect and better ocular tolerability than twice-daily dosing.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0161-6420(01)00584-x

Cites

23 of 23 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].”

    From Bimatoprost for Eyelash Growth in Japanese Subjects: Two Multicenter Controlled Studies (2014) · cites this paper as [12]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 24 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Brandt, J. D., VanDenburgh, A. M., Chen, K., & Whitcup, S. M.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Davis (US)
  • Allergan (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Brandt, James D
ORCID
Venue
Ophthalmology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2001-06
Volume
108
Issue
6
Pages
1023-1031
ISSN
0161-6420 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/s0161-6420(01)00584-x
OpenAlex
W2138342502
Cited by
152
References
24
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 4
FWCI
16.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • 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, intraocular pressure, ocular hypertension, glaucoma, once-daily dosing, twice-daily dosing, beta-blockers, prostamide, hyperemia, eyelash growth, drug safety and tolerability, intraocular pressure reduction, visual acuity, heart rate, blood pressure, adverse events, iris pigmentation
MeSH terms
Bimatoprost, Adult, Amides, Antihypertensive Agents, Cloprostenol, Double-Blind Method, Drug Administration Schedule, Female, Glaucoma, Hemodynamics, Humans, Intraocular Pressure, Lipids, Male, Middle Aged, Ocular Hypertension, Ophthalmic Solutions, Safety, Timolol, Visual Acuity, Visual Fields, 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