Advances in Therapy

, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 92–100 | Cite as

Comparison of brimonidine/ latanoprost and timolol/ dorzolamide: Two randomized, double-masked, parallel clinical trials

  • Norman Zabriskie
  • Peter A. Netland


Two double-masked, randomized, parallel, multicenter trials of similar design were conducted to compare the IOP-lowering efficacy of dual therapy with brimonidine 0.2% and latanoprost 0.005% with the fixed combination of timolol 0.5%/dorzolamide 2% in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension. The combination of brimonidine and latanoprost produced significantly greater mean IOP reductions at each visit in both trials. In study 1, the mean reduction at peak drug effect after 6 weeks was 9.2 mm Hg (34.7%) with brimonidine and latanoprost and 6.7 mm Hg (26.1%) with timolol/dorzolamide (P=.024); respective reductions at week 12 were 9.0 mm Hg (33.9%) and 6.5 mm Hg (25.3%) (P=.044). At the month 1 visit in study 2, the mean peak IOP reduction was 10.6 mm Hg (39.0%) with dual therapy and 6.3 mm Hg (25.1%) with the fixed combination (P=.001). After 3 months, reductions were 9.1 mm Hg (33.4%) and 6.6 mm Hg (26.3%) (P=.047). In these studies, the combination of brimonidine and latanoprost provided IOP control superior to that of the fixed combination of timolol/dorzolamide.


brimonidine latanoprost fixed combination timolol dorzolamide 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Kobelt G. Comparative data for all countries. In: Jonsson B, Kriegelstein G, eds.Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma. Differences in International Treatment Patterns and Costs. Oxford, England: ISIS Medical Media; 1998:116–126.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Strohmaier K, Snyder E, DuBiner H, Adamsons I. The efficacy and safety of the dorzolamidetimolol combination versus the concomitant administration of its components.Ophthalmology. 1998;105:1936–1944.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Katz LJ. Brimonidine tartrate 0.2% twice daily vs timolol 0.5% twice daily: 1-year results in glaucoma patients.Am J Ophthalmol. 1999;127:20–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Melamed S, David R. Ongoing clinical assessment of the safety profile and efficacy of brimonidine compared with timolol: year-three results.Clin Ther. 2000;22:103–111.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lee DA, Gornbein J. Effectiveness and safety of brimonidine as adjunctive therapy for patients with elevated IOP in a large, open-label community trial.J Glaucoma. 2001;10:220–226.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Simmons ST, Earl ML. Three-month comparison of brimonidine and latanoprost as adjunctive therapy in glaucoma and ocular hypertension patients uncontrolled on beta-blockers: tolerance and peak intraocular pressure lowering.Ophthalmology. 2002;109:307–315.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Simmons ST. Efficacy of brimonidine 0.2% and dorzolamide 2% as adjunctive therapy to beta-blockers in adult patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension.Clin Ther. 2001;23:604–620.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Simmons ST, Samuelson TW. Comparison of brimonidine with latanoprost in the adjunctive treatment of glaucoma.Clin Ther. 2000;22:388–399.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lee DA, Gornbein J, Abrams C. The effectiveness and safety of brimonidine as mono, combination, or replacement therapy for patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension: a post-hoc analysis of an open-label community trial.J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 2000;16:3–18.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Alm A, Camras CB, Watson PG. Phase III latanoprost studies in Scandinavia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.Surv Ophthalmol. 1997;41(suppl 2):S105-S110.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Alm A, Stjernschantz J. Effects on intraocular pressure and side effects of 0.005% latanoprost applied once daily, evening or morning. A comparison with timolol.Ophthalmology. 1995; 102:1743–1752.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Camras CB. Comparison of latanoprost and timolol in patients with ocular hypertension and glaucoma. A six-month, masked, multicenter trial in the United States.Ophthalmology. 1996;103:138–147.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Martin L. Clinical experience with latanoprost: a retrospective study of 153 patients.Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1999;77:336–339.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    The AGIS Investigators. The Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study (AGIS): 7. The relationship between control of intraocular pressure and visual field deterioration.Am J Ophthalmol. 2000;130:429–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Collaborative Normal-Tension Glaucoma Study Group. Comparison of glaucomatous progression between untreated patients with normal-tension glaucoma and patients with therapeutically reduced intraocular pressures.Am J Ophthalmol. 1998;126:487–497. Published erratum appears inAm J Ophthalmol. 1999;127:120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Walters TR, Shapiro A, Mroz M. A comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of brimonidine/ latanoprost versus timolol/latanoprost dual therapy.Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000;41:S514. Abstract 2736.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science and Business Media and LLC 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Norman Zabriskie
    • 1
  • Peter A. Netland
    • 2
  1. 1.John A. Moran Eye CenterUniversity of UtahSalt Lake City
  2. 2.Department of OphthalmologyUniversity of Tennessee at MemphisMemphis

Personalised recommendations