A 12 week study comparing the fixed combination of latanoprost and timolol with the concomitant use of the individual components in patients with open angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension

Comparative Effect of Latanoprost/Timolol Fixed Combination and Unfixed Combination in Patients with Ocular Hypertension Attending Irrua Specialist Teaching Hospital, Irrua, Nigeria

“…This is evident in the observed IOP lowering effect and unrecorded adverse outcomes in our study population. This finding is in accordance with the reports of several prospective and randomized clinical trials where the combinations of latanoprost/timolol havedemonstrated effectiveness and tolerability [17][18][19][20][21][22][23].…”

Twenty-four-hour efficacy of the brimonidine/timolol fixed combination versus therapy with the unfixed components

“…3 In previous trials, with the exception of Goni and co-workers, there were differences in the frequency of dosing between the fixed and unfixed therapy combinations (eg, timolol once versus twice daily or dorzolamide twice versus three times daily) or with the dosing schedule (eg, the prostaglandin dosed in the evening versus morning). 23,24,27,28 These design differences in the dosing may have accounted for the small differences in pressures between the fixed and unfixed combinations in previous studies.…”

Long-Term Outcomes of Prostaglandin Analog Versus Timolol Maleate in Ocular Hypertensive or Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma Patients in Europe

“…A further 16 studies were subsequently excluded for various reasons: 4 because the PGA in the Mt was different from that in the FC; one because it was a pooled analysis of already included articles; one because it compared 2 FCs; 2 because they investigated other drugs; one because it had a different aim; 2 because they were not randomized trials; one because it was a comment letter; 3 because the treatment lasted < 4 weeks; and one because it also included patients with normotensive glaucoma (Supplementary Table S2). A total of 17 articles [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32] were therefore selected for data extraction and analysis, but as one described the results of 2 studies, 30 the total number of studies was 18. Table 1 shows the characteristics of the 18 studies.…”

“…In all 5 studies involving comparisons of FCs and UCs, 21,23,25,26,31 the FCs were less effective in reducing IOP than the UCs. The pooled estimate of the MeD was 0.69 (95% CI: 0.29 to 1.08; test for overall effect: Z 3.40, P = 0.0007), although the studies were characterized by quantitative heterogeneity (ie, different sizes of the effect difference): I 2 52%; test for heterogeneity: w 2 : 8.28, df 4, P = 0.08.…”

“…Another explanation may be that, in 4 of the 5 analyzed studies, the FC was administered in the morning. 21,23,25,31 As mentioned above, the inclusion of studies with day-time measurements may overestimate the efficacy of PGAs and their respective FCs administered in the evening, and underestimate the efficacy of PGAs, and their respective FCs administered in the morning, because their peak efficacy remains largely unrecorded unless IOP is measured at night.…”