Comparison of topical timolol vs betaxolol on cardiopulmonary exercise performance in healthy volunteers

The Effect of β-Blocker Eye Drops on Pulse Rate, Ocular Blood Flow, and Glaucoma Progression: A Retrospective Longitudinal Study

INTRODUCTION

Our study was conducted to determine factors associated with the effectiveness of a β-blocker eye drop add-on in altering pulse rate (PR) in glaucoma patients.

METHODS

This retrospective study examined 236 eyes of 138 patients who received a β-blocker eye drop add-on during follow-up. Patients were included if at least one PR measurement was available both before and after the add-on was started. We collected data on ophthalmic parameters: longitudinal PR; longitudinal choroidal blood flow, represented by laser speckle flowgraphy-measured mean blur rate (MBR); and diacron-reactive oxygen metabolites (d-ROMs). We used a multivariable linear mixed-effects model to investigate the effectiveness of the β-blocker eye drop add-on in altering PR and examined factors contributing to a larger PR alteration after the add-on was started by analyzing the effect on PR of the interaction term between the add-on and clinical factors. We used the k-means method to classify the patients.

RESULTS

The β-blocker eye drop add-on reduced PR (- 7.61 bpm, P < 0.001). Female gender, higher PR when the add-on was started, lower central corneal thickness, and a higher d-ROM level were associated with greater reduction in PR (P < 0.05). In a cluster of patients with these clinical features, choroidal MBR increased by + 3.42% when we adjusted for change over time; MD slope, which represents the speed of glaucoma progression, improved by + 0.64 dB/year (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

We identified a glaucoma subgroup in which PR decreased, choroidal blood flow increased, and glaucoma progression slowed after a β-blocker eye drop add-on was started.

Association between Ophthalmic Timolol and Hospitalisation for Bradycardia

Introduction. Ophthalmic timolol, a topical nonselective beta-blocker, has the potential to be absorbed systemically which may cause adverse cardiovascular effects. This study was conducted to determine whether initiation of ophthalmic timolol was associated with an increased risk of hospitalisation for bradycardia. Materials and Methods. A self-controlled case-series study was undertaken in patients who were hospitalised for bradycardia and were exposed to timolol. Person-time after timolol initiation was partitioned into risk periods: 1–30 days, 31–180 days, and >180 days. A 30-day risk period prior to initiating timolol was also included. All remaining time was considered unexposed. Results. There were 6,373 patients with at least one hospitalisation for bradycardia during the study period; 267 were exposed to timolol. Risk of bradycardia was significantly increased in the 31–180 days after timolol initiation (incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 1.93; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00–1.87). No increased risk was observed in the first 30 days or beyond 180 days of continuous exposure (IRR = 1.40; 95% CI 0.87–2.26 and IRR = 1.21; 95% CI 0.64–2.31, resp.). Conclusion. Bradycardia is a potential adverse event following timolol initiation. Practitioners should consider patient history before choosing a glaucoma regime and closely monitor patients after treatment initiation with topical nonselective beta-blocker eye drops.

Ophthalmic timolol: plasma concentration and systemic cardiopulmonary effects

Timolol maleate is a non-selective beta-adrenoceptor antagonist currently used mainly as an ocular preparation for the treatment of glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Despite the topical administration, ophthalmic timolol causes systemic adrenergic beta-blocking because of absorption from the eye into the systemic circulation. Gel formulations of ophthalmic timolol have been developed to reduce systemic absorption and adverse effects in comparison with conventional aqueous solution formulations. Timolol is metabolized by the polymorphic cytochrome P450 2D6 enzyme (CYP2D6). The changes in heart rate (HR) are the most striking effects of the systematically absorbed fraction of ophthalmic timolol, with 0.5 % aqueous formulations presenting larger effects than 0.1 % hydrogel formulations, especially during exercise. Plasma levels of ophthalmic timolol correlate with the changes in HR. Neither 0.5 % aqueous nor 0.1 % hydrogel formulations of timolol have exerted noteworthy effects on systolic (SAP) or diastolic (DAP) arterial pressures, probably because of a compensatory increase in systemic vascular resistance due to the attenuation of HR. Ophthalmic timolol does not exert remarkable effects on pulmonary parameter peak expiratory flow (PEF) and forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) in non-asthmatic patients. CYP2D6 activity is clearly associated with the pharmacokinetic parameters, particularly when 0.5 % aqueous solution of timolol is used: peak plasma concentration, elimination half-life and area-under-the-curve are highest in CYP2D6 poor metabolizers. Finally, since there is a correlation between the plasma level of timolol and several haemodynamic effects - especially HR in the state of elevated beta-adrenergic tonus - the CYP2D6 poor metabolizers may be more prone to bradycardia during treatment with (aqueous) ophthalmic timolol.

Efficacy and systemic side-effects of topical 0.5% timolol aqueous solution and 0.1% timolol hydrogel

PURPOSE

The objective of this randomized, double-blind, controlled crossover trial was to compare 0.1% timolol hydrogel formulation eyedrops with 0.5% timolol aqueous solution in terms of systemic effects, hypotensive efficacy and pharmacodynamics.

METHODS

Twenty-four healthy subjects underwent careful ocular, cardiovascular and pulmonary function evaluation before and after 2 weeks of topical treatment with 0.1% timolol hydrogel or 0.5% aqueous timolol maleate. Intraocular pressure (IOP), heart rate, blood pressure, forced expiratory volume and plasma levels of timolol were measured.

RESULTS

There was a statistically significant difference in the systemic absorption of timolol between these two ophthalmic timolol solutions. The peak concentration and mean area under the plasma drug concentration-time curve (AUC) were about 10-fold higher after 0.5% timolol aqueous solution. The mean peak heart rate during exercise was reduced by 19 bpm (SD 6.4 bpm) after 0.5% timolol aqueous solution and by only 4.6 bpm (SD 3.8 bpm) after 0.1% timolol hydrogel (p < 0.0001). There was no difference between the two formulations in efficacy in reducing IOP. No differences between treatments were found in respect of pulmonary function.

CONCLUSIONS

The lower timolol concentration in the hydrogel vehicle and its better bioavailability resulted in reduced systemic absorption and side-effects without loss of efficacy.

Cardiovascular effects of ophthalmic 0.5% timolol aqueous solution and 0.1% timolol hydrogel

The objective of this randomized, double-masked, cross-over study was to compare the cardiovascular effects of two glaucoma formulations, ophthalmic 0.5% timolol aqueous solution and 0.1% timolol hydrogel. Twenty-four young healthy subjects received for 2 weeks either twice daily 0.5% timolol solution or once daily 0.1% timolol hydrogel. Heart rate (HR), blood pressure, atrio-ventricular conduction (PR interval), corrected QT time (QTc) and heart rate variability (HRV) were measured in supine position and during head-up tilted position. The mean peak concentrations of timolol in plasma were significantly higher after administration of 0.5% aqueous solution than after 0.1% hydrogel. A 0.5% timolol aqueous solution decreased HR on average by 3 bpm in supine position and by 7 bpm in head-up tilted position while no significant effects were observed with 0.1% timolol hydrogel. During tilt test HR was significantly lower after administration of timolol aqueous solution than after timolol hydrogel (mean +/- SD, 77 +/- 11 bpm versus 86 +/- 13 bpm, P < 0.05). Timolol aqueous solution slightly decreased QTc during tilt (5.9 +/- 5.6 ms, P < 0.01). During tilt tests, timolol aqueous solution slightly increased atrio-ventricular conduction (7.2 ms, P = 0.02). No significant differences were found in HRV. These results indicate that in healthy volunteers, ophthalmic 0.5% timolol aqueous solution produces more pronounced cardiac beta-blocking effects than 0.1% timolol hydrogel.

Comparison of the effects of aqueous and gellan ophthalmic timolol on peak exercise performance in middle-aged men

PURPOSE

To compare the effects of 0.5% aqueous timolol and 0.5% timolol gellan on exercise performance in middle-aged men.

METHODS

We evaluated the effects of 0.5% aqueous timolol (timolol solution, administered twice daily, and a 0.5% timolol gellan suspension that forms a gel on application to the conjunctiva (timolol gellan), administered once daily, on exercise performance in 42 healthy men with a mean age of 58 years (range, 55 to 65 years). Serum concentrations of timolol were assayed. Subjects exercised maximally on an upright cycle ergometer four times with ten-day intervals. After baseline testing, subjects were randomly assigned and crossed over in a double-masked manner to two and a half days of treatment with placebo, 0.5% timolol solution, and 0.5% timolol gellan.

RESULTS

The serum timolol concentrations immediately after testing were 0.91 +/- 0.51 ng/ml for timolol solution compared to 0.71 +/- 0.46 ng/ml for timolol gellan (P < .05). The change from baseline in resting heart rate was -1.8 +/- 9.3 beats/min (P = .23) for placebo, -11.0 +/- 9.6 beats/min (P < .001) for timolol gellan. The change from baseline in peak heart rate was -0.1 +/- 7.3 beats/min (P = .92) for placebo, -15.6 +/- 5.6 beats/min (P < .001) for timolol solution, and -11.9 +/- 8.0 beats/min (P < .001) for timolol solution, and -8.5 +/- 7. 5 beats/min (P<.001) for timolol gellan. Pair-wise comparison demonstrated significantly less reduction in both resting (P < .05) and peak heart rate (P < .01) for timolol gellan vs timolol solution.

CONCLUSIONS

Although both treatments caused reductions in testing and peak heart rate, timolol gellan was associated with significantly less reductions. The significant difference in serum concentrations of timolol between the two treatments is strong evidence that the difference in heart rate response was caused by reduced systemic absorption with timolol gellan.