A 6-Month Study Comparing Efficacy, Safety, and Tolerability of the Preservative-free Fixed Combination of Tafluprost 0.0015% and Timolol 0.5% versus Each of Its Individual Preservative-Free Components

Introduction The efficacy, safety and tolerability of the preservative-free (PF) fixed combination (FC) of tafluprost 0.0015% and timolol 0.5% (once daily) were compared to those of the individual components (PF tafluprost 0.0015% once daily and PF timolol 0.5% twice daily) in patients with open-ang...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Advances in therapy 2014-12, Vol.31 (12), p.1228-1246
Hauptverfasser: Pfeiffer, Norbert, Traverso, Carlo E., Lorenz, Katrin, Saarela, Ville, Liinamaa, Johanna, Uusitalo, Hannu, Astakhov, Yury, Boiko, Ernest, Ropo, Auli
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Introduction The efficacy, safety and tolerability of the preservative-free (PF) fixed combination (FC) of tafluprost 0.0015% and timolol 0.5% (once daily) were compared to those of the individual components (PF tafluprost 0.0015% once daily and PF timolol 0.5% twice daily) in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension inadequately controlled on prior timolol or prostaglandin monotherapy for 6 months. Methods A stratified, double-masked, randomized, multicenter phase III study was conducted. A total of 189 prior timolol users were randomized within the timolol stratum (TS) to receive either FC ( n  = 95) or timolol 0.5% (TIM; n  = 94). Furthermore, a total of 375 prior prostaglandin analog (PGA) users were randomized within the prostaglandin stratum (PS) to receive either FC ( n  = 188) or tafluprost 0.0015% (TAF; n  = 187). To be eligible for participation in the study, the patients were required to have an intraocular pressure (IOP) of ≥22 mmHg when on timolol (TIM) or of ≥20 mmHg when on PGA in either treated eye at the screening and end-of-run-in visits. In addition to these, the study included visits at baseline, 2 and 6 weeks, 3 and 6 months and at a post-study visit. IOP was measured at 8 a.m., 10 a.m., 4 p.m., and 8 p.m. Results In the TS, a significant reduction from baseline IOP was seen with FC and TIM throughout the study. Average diurnal IOP change from baseline at month 3 was −8.55 mmHg (32%) for FC and −7.35 mmHg (28%) for TIM. The model-based treatment difference (FC–TIM) was −0.885 mmHg [95% confidence interval (CI) −1.745 to −0.024; p  = 0.044] demonstrating the superiority of FC over TIM. In the PS, a significant reduction in IOP was seen with both FC and TAF throughout the study. The average diurnal IOP change from baseline at month 3 was −8.61 mmHg (33%) for FC and −7.23 mmHg (28%) for TAF. The model-based treatment difference (FC–TAF) was −1.516 mmHg (95% CI −2.044 to −0.988; p  
ISSN:0741-238X
1865-8652
DOI:10.1007/s12325-014-0163-3