Cargando…
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-an...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Healthcare
2014
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4271134/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25447269 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12325-014-0163-3 |
_version_ | 1782349556154892288 |
---|---|
author | Pfeiffer, Norbert Traverso, Carlo E. Lorenz, Katrin Saarela, Ville Liinamaa, Johanna Uusitalo, Hannu Astakhov, Yury Boiko, Ernest Ropo, Auli |
author_facet | Pfeiffer, Norbert Traverso, Carlo E. Lorenz, Katrin Saarela, Ville Liinamaa, Johanna Uusitalo, Hannu Astakhov, Yury Boiko, Ernest Ropo, Auli |
author_sort | Pfeiffer, Norbert |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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 < 0.001) demonstrating the superiority of FC over TAF. In the TS, related ocular adverse events (AEs) were more frequent for patients treated with FC compared to TIM (16.8% versus 6.4%), whereas related non-ocular AEs were more frequent with TIM compared to FC (2.1% versus 0.0%). In the PS, AEs were similarly distributed between FC and TAF. The frequency of conjunctival hyperemia of FC was low (6.4%). CONCLUSION: The preservative-free fixed combination of tafluprost and timolol provided a substantial and significant IOP reduction in both strata. The IOP reduction was superior to both tafluprost 0.0015% and timolol 0.5% when given as monotherapies. Overall, the study treatments were safe and well tolerated. FUNDING: Santen Oy, Tampere, Finland. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12325-014-0163-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4271134 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2014 |
publisher | Springer Healthcare |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-42711342014-12-22 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 Pfeiffer, Norbert Traverso, Carlo E. Lorenz, Katrin Saarela, Ville Liinamaa, Johanna Uusitalo, Hannu Astakhov, Yury Boiko, Ernest Ropo, Auli Adv Ther Original Research 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 < 0.001) demonstrating the superiority of FC over TAF. In the TS, related ocular adverse events (AEs) were more frequent for patients treated with FC compared to TIM (16.8% versus 6.4%), whereas related non-ocular AEs were more frequent with TIM compared to FC (2.1% versus 0.0%). In the PS, AEs were similarly distributed between FC and TAF. The frequency of conjunctival hyperemia of FC was low (6.4%). CONCLUSION: The preservative-free fixed combination of tafluprost and timolol provided a substantial and significant IOP reduction in both strata. The IOP reduction was superior to both tafluprost 0.0015% and timolol 0.5% when given as monotherapies. Overall, the study treatments were safe and well tolerated. FUNDING: Santen Oy, Tampere, Finland. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12325-014-0163-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer Healthcare 2014-12-02 2014 /pmc/articles/PMC4271134/ /pubmed/25447269 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12325-014-0163-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2014 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Original Research Pfeiffer, Norbert Traverso, Carlo E. Lorenz, Katrin Saarela, Ville Liinamaa, Johanna Uusitalo, Hannu Astakhov, Yury Boiko, Ernest Ropo, Auli 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 |
title | 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 |
title_full | 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 |
title_fullStr | 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 |
title_full_unstemmed | 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 |
title_short | 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 |
title_sort | 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 |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4271134/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25447269 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12325-014-0163-3 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT pfeiffernorbert a6monthstudycomparingefficacysafetyandtolerabilityofthepreservativefreefixedcombinationoftafluprost00015andtimolol05versuseachofitsindividualpreservativefreecomponents AT traversocarloe a6monthstudycomparingefficacysafetyandtolerabilityofthepreservativefreefixedcombinationoftafluprost00015andtimolol05versuseachofitsindividualpreservativefreecomponents AT lorenzkatrin a6monthstudycomparingefficacysafetyandtolerabilityofthepreservativefreefixedcombinationoftafluprost00015andtimolol05versuseachofitsindividualpreservativefreecomponents AT saarelaville a6monthstudycomparingefficacysafetyandtolerabilityofthepreservativefreefixedcombinationoftafluprost00015andtimolol05versuseachofitsindividualpreservativefreecomponents AT liinamaajohanna a6monthstudycomparingefficacysafetyandtolerabilityofthepreservativefreefixedcombinationoftafluprost00015andtimolol05versuseachofitsindividualpreservativefreecomponents AT uusitalohannu a6monthstudycomparingefficacysafetyandtolerabilityofthepreservativefreefixedcombinationoftafluprost00015andtimolol05versuseachofitsindividualpreservativefreecomponents AT astakhovyury a6monthstudycomparingefficacysafetyandtolerabilityofthepreservativefreefixedcombinationoftafluprost00015andtimolol05versuseachofitsindividualpreservativefreecomponents AT boikoernest a6monthstudycomparingefficacysafetyandtolerabilityofthepreservativefreefixedcombinationoftafluprost00015andtimolol05versuseachofitsindividualpreservativefreecomponents AT ropoauli a6monthstudycomparingefficacysafetyandtolerabilityofthepreservativefreefixedcombinationoftafluprost00015andtimolol05versuseachofitsindividualpreservativefreecomponents AT pfeiffernorbert 6monthstudycomparingefficacysafetyandtolerabilityofthepreservativefreefixedcombinationoftafluprost00015andtimolol05versuseachofitsindividualpreservativefreecomponents AT traversocarloe 6monthstudycomparingefficacysafetyandtolerabilityofthepreservativefreefixedcombinationoftafluprost00015andtimolol05versuseachofitsindividualpreservativefreecomponents AT lorenzkatrin 6monthstudycomparingefficacysafetyandtolerabilityofthepreservativefreefixedcombinationoftafluprost00015andtimolol05versuseachofitsindividualpreservativefreecomponents AT saarelaville 6monthstudycomparingefficacysafetyandtolerabilityofthepreservativefreefixedcombinationoftafluprost00015andtimolol05versuseachofitsindividualpreservativefreecomponents AT liinamaajohanna 6monthstudycomparingefficacysafetyandtolerabilityofthepreservativefreefixedcombinationoftafluprost00015andtimolol05versuseachofitsindividualpreservativefreecomponents AT uusitalohannu 6monthstudycomparingefficacysafetyandtolerabilityofthepreservativefreefixedcombinationoftafluprost00015andtimolol05versuseachofitsindividualpreservativefreecomponents AT astakhovyury 6monthstudycomparingefficacysafetyandtolerabilityofthepreservativefreefixedcombinationoftafluprost00015andtimolol05versuseachofitsindividualpreservativefreecomponents AT boikoernest 6monthstudycomparingefficacysafetyandtolerabilityofthepreservativefreefixedcombinationoftafluprost00015andtimolol05versuseachofitsindividualpreservativefreecomponents AT ropoauli 6monthstudycomparingefficacysafetyandtolerabilityofthepreservativefreefixedcombinationoftafluprost00015andtimolol05versuseachofitsindividualpreservativefreecomponents |