Physician Attitudes regarding Prostaglandin Treatment for Glaucoma in the United States and Europe

Ophthalmologist Attitudes regarding Fixed Combination Treatment for Glaucoma in the European Union

Purpose

To survey ophthalmologists in the European Union to determine their fixed combination (FC) preferences.

Methods

A multiple-choice survey was sent to randomly chosen ophthalmologists throughout the European Union and bordering countries by electronic mail delivery. Ophthalmologists were resent the survey on two more occasions if no response was obtained.

Results

In total, 50 surveys were received from 530 distributed (9.4% response) from 16 countries. More ophthalmologists prescribed an FC as second (80%) or third choice (64%) therapy than first choice (30%, p=0.0036). As first (p<0.0001) and third choice (p=0.011), the dorzolamide/timolol FC was most commonly prescribed, while as second choice the latanoprost/timolol FC (p<0.0001) was most popular. Overall, 98% (49/50) of doctors believed FC therapy improved patient care most often by better compliance (n=49) and quality of life (n=48, p<0.0001). Most ophthalmologists believed that there was a difference in efficacy between the FC products (32/50, 64%) with the most effective being the bimatoprost/timolol FC (n=12, 24%, p=0.029). However, fewer ophthalmologists perceived safety differences between the products (34/50, 68%). For prostaglandins, dosing time was suggested in the morning by 18 (36%) ophthalmologists and in the evening by 24 (48%) (p=0.35).

Conclusions

FCs in the European Union are a potentially popular method to reduce intraocular pressure, being prescribed most commonly as second or third choice therapy. The perceived advantages to FC therapy are greater compliance to the medicine and improved patient quality of life.

The impact of timolol maleate on the ocular tolerability of fixed-combination glaucoma therapies

Glaucomatous optic atrophy is the second most common cause of blindness worldwide, and lowering intraocular pressure (IOP) is the only proven method to slow or stop the progression of the disease. Approximately 40% of patients with elevated IOP will require more than one medication to obtain a modest 20% reduction in IOP, and as a result, some patients may require two medications, provided in either two separate bottles or in one bottle with the use of fixed-combination therapies. Each therapy has its own unique safety and efficacy profile. Topical beta-blockers have a particularly favorable ocular-tolerability profile, and several studies of fixed-combination medications containing the beta-blocker timolol maleate have shown a lower prevalence of some ocular adverse events for the fixed-combination therapy compared to the non-beta-blocker individual component. In this review, we examined clinical data pertaining to the ocular surface tolerability of fixed-combination medications containing timolol maleate in comparison to the individual components. In particular, preference was given to prospective, randomized, multicenter trials of 3 months in duration or longer that compared a fixed-combination therapy to monotherapy with the individual components. A review of the literature revealed that some fixed-combination therapies can provide a reduced risk of common side effects compared to their individual components, with conjunctival hyperemia and ocular allergy being less frequent in some timolol-containing fixed-combination therapies. This effect appears to be most significant for latanoprost 0.005%, bimatoprost 0.03%, and brimonidine 0.2%.

Long-term cost and efficacy analysis of latanoprost versus timolol in glaucoma patients in Germany

AIM

To evaluate 5-year effectiveness and cost between latanoprost or timolol monotherapy in a pilot trial.

METHODS

A retrospective, multi-center trial performed at 6 sites in Germany of patients who had a diagnosis of primary open-angle or pigmentary glaucoma, in at least one eye, initiated on monotherapy with latanoprost or timolol maleate. Qualified consecutive charts were reviewed in which 5-year efficacy, safety and cost data was abstracted.

RESULTS

Seventy-seoen latanoprost and 49 timolol patients were included, at the final visit no difference existed between the two groups in disc parameters including: rim area, rim area/disc area ratio, cup volume or vertical cup/disc ratio (P>0.05). There was no difference in intraocular pressure (IOP) between the initial latanoprost (17.4±2.6) and timolol (16.3±2.8mmHg) groups. There was less change in medicines over the follow-up period (0.1 vs 0.8) and fewer medications at the final visit (1.2 vs 1.8) with latanoprost compared to timolol. No patient treated with latanoprost discontinued therapy during follow-up, while 12% discontinued timolol mostly due to inadequate IOP control. Cost/year was less with initial timolol ($458±236) as compared to latanoprost ($552±202).

CONCLUSION

Patients begun on latanoprost or timolol and followed over 5 years may have similar clinical outcomes. However, timolol patients may require more medicines and medicine changes to control IOP for long-term, but at a lower cost.

Balancing efficacy and tolerability of prostaglandin analogues and prostaglandin-timolol fixed combinations in primary open-angle glaucoma

BACKGROUND

Lowering intraocular pressure (IOP) is currently the only therapeutic approach that preserves visual function in primary open-angle glaucoma. In making treatment decisions for first- and second-line therapy, the clinician needs to provide an appropriate balance of efficacy and tolerability. Prostaglandin analogues (PGAs) are frequently used as first-line monotherapy, because of their efficacy and low risk of systemic side effects. Similarly, PGA-based fixed combinations are frequently used in patients who progress or fail to achieve the target IOP.

SCOPE

We have reviewed the literature on the management of primary open-angle glaucoma with PGAs, both as monotherapies and in fixed combinations.

FINDINGS

In the clinical trial and meta-analysis data identified, bimatoprost 0.03% seems to be associated with a greater overall ability to lower IOP compared with latanoprost, travoprost or tafluprost, at the cost of a slightly higher incidence of conjunctival hyperaemia. Studies indicate that patients' adherence to treatment is generally better with PGAs than with many other monotherapies. In patients requiring more than one IOP-lowering agent, fixed combination treatments may provide improved adherence and tolerability benefits compared with concomitant use of individual treatments. Bimatoprost/timolol fixed combination appears to be slightly more efficacious than latanoprost/timolol or travoprost/timolol, and tolerability differences between the fixed combinations appear to be slight, probably because the addition of timolol to the PGA component lessens the associated hyperaemia. Surveys on EU physician attitudes appear largely in line with these clinical data.

CONCLUSION

An appropriate balance between efficacy and tolerability ensures optimum IOP lowering and reduces the risk of non-adherence. PGAs largely fulfil this need as monotherapies and as components of combinations.

Hyperemia reduction after administration of a fixed combination of bimatoprost and timolol maleate to patients on prostaglandin or prostamide monotherapy

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the change in hyperemia and intraocular pressure (IOP) in patients who switch from prostaglandin or prostamide to a fixed combination of prostamide and timolol maleate.

DESIGN

A multicenter, longitudinal, noncontrolled, nonrandomized open trial was conducted.

PARTICIPANTS

One hundred forty-four patients (282 eyes) were selected: 60 (41.6%) were on travaprost, 51 (35.4%) on bimatoprost, and 33 (22.9%) on latanoprost. All patients included were unable to attain adequate IOP control with monotherapy and had no contraindications to β-blockers.

INTERVENTION

Patients were treated with a fixed combination of bimatoprost and timolol maleate. Hyperemia was evaluated using a referential table, and IOP was measured at 8:00, 12:00, and 16:00 h both before and after 4 months of treatment.

MAIN OUTCOME

IOP and hyperemia were compared at 2 time points: pretreatment and after 4 months. The mean of the 3 IOP measurements taken at various points during the day was considered for analysis. Generalized estimating equations were used for repeated measures and intereye dependency adjustments.

RESULTS

Hyperemia and IOP were reduced in all 3 groups, with the same pattern for both eyes. The bimatoprost group had the highest levels of hyperemia before treatment when compared with the latanoprost as well as the travaprost group and had the greatest reduction in hyperemia after treatment (P < 0.01). Regarding IOP, all 3 groups had a significant reduction (P < 0.001), but the bimatoprost group had a lower pretreatment IOP when compared with the travaprost and latanoprost groups.

CONCLUSION

A significant reduction in hyperemia was found after switching from monotherapy with prostaglandins or prostamide to a fixed combination of prostamide and a β-blocker. IOP reduction was significant after the intervention in all 3 groups.