Cited by 67Glaucoma and retinal disordersDrug-Induced Ocular ToxicityBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies

A randomised, double masked, multicentre clinical trial comparing bimatoprost and timolol for the treatment of glaucoma and ocular hypertension

Open access
Whitcup, S M·2003·British Journal of Ophthalmology

Abstract

AIM: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of bimatoprost 0.03% once daily or twice daily compared with timolol 0.5% twice daily in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension. METHODS: Multicentre, double masked, randomised, parallel group, 3 month trial comparing bimatoprost once daily (n=240), bimatoprost twice daily (n=240), and timolol twice daily (n=122). The primary efficacy end point was diurnal intraocular pressure (IOP) (8 am, 10 am, 4 pm). Safety measures included adverse events, ocular parameters, and systemic variables. RESULTS: Bimatoprost once daily provided significantly lower mean IOP than timolol twice daily at all times and follow up visits (p<0.001). At month 3, mean IOP reductions from baseline at 10 am (peak timolol effect) were bimatoprost once daily, 8.0 mm Hg (32.4%); bimatoprost twice daily, 6.3 mm Hg (25.2%); timolol, 5.5 mm Hg (22.7%). Bimatoprost twice daily was also more effective than timolol, but was not as effective as bimatoprost once daily. A higher percentage of patients achieved low target pressures with bimatoprost once daily than with timolol. The most frequent side effects with bimatoprost were eyelash growth and mild conjunctival hyperaemia. Systemic safety parameters were not affected by bimatoprost. CONCLUSIONS: Bimatoprost 0.03% once daily demonstrated superior efficacy compared with timolol 0.5% twice daily in patients with elevated IOP. Bimatoprost once daily was more effective than twice daily dosing.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bjo.87.1.57

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
Whitcup, S. M.
Affiliations
Allergan (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Whitcup, S M
Venue
British Journal of Ophthalmology
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2003-01-01
Volume
87
Issue
1
Pages
57-62
ISSN
0007-1161 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2160247717
Cited by
67
References
1
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 3
FWCI
3.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal of Ophthalmology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
Allergan
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, glaucoma, ocular hypertension, intraocular pressure, prostamide, beta-blockers, once-daily dosing, twice-daily dosing, eyelash growth, conjunctival hyperemia, adverse events
MeSH terms
Bimatoprost, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Amides, Antihypertensive Agents, Cloprostenol, Double-Blind Method, Drug Administration Schedule, Female, Glaucoma, Humans, Intraocular Pressure, Lipids, Male, Middle Aged, Ocular Hypertension, 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