Choosing Adjunctive Glaucoma Therapy

  • Jess T. Whitson


Glaucoma is a group of optic neuropathies characterized by retinal ganglion cell death, irreversible optic nerve damage, and vision loss. The treatment of glaucoma consists of reducing intraocular pressure (IOP) to a target level that is presumed to prevent further optic nerve deterioration. This presumption of clinical stability should be reevaluated at each clinical encounter with the patient and a new lower target IOP level estimated if progression has occurred.


Ocular Hypertension Trabecular Meshwork Fixed Combination Selective Laser Trabeculoplasty Adjunctive Agent 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    American Academy of Ophthalmology. Primary open-angle glaucoma, preferred practice pattern. San Francisco: American Academy of Ophthalmology. <>; 2005 Accessed 31.01.08.
  2. 2.
    Zimmerman TJ, Kaufman HE. Timolol. A beta-adrenergic blocking agent for the treatment of glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 1977;95(4):601–604.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Soltau JB, Zimmerman TJ. Changing paradigms in the medical treatment of glaucoma. Surv Ophthalmol. 2002;47(Suppl 1):S2-S5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lee PY, Podos SM, Severin C. Effect of prostaglandin F2 alpha on aqueous humor dynamics of rabbit, cat, and monkey. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1984;25(9):1087–1093.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brubaker RF, Schoff EO, Nau CB, et al. Effects of AGN 192024, a new ocular hypotensive agent, on aqueous dynamics. Am J Ophthalmol. 2001;131(1):19–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Toris CB, Camras CB, Yablonski ME. Effects of PhXA41, a new prostaglandin F2 alpha analog, on aqueous humor dynamics in human eyes. Ophthalmology. 1993;100(9):1297–1304.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ziai N, Dolan JW, Kacere RD, Brubaker RF. The effects on aqueous dynamics of PhXA41, a new prostaglandin F2_ analogue, after topical application in normal and ocular hypertensive human eyes. Arch Ophthalmol. 1993;111:1351–1358.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Camras CB, Siebold EC, Lustgarten JS, et al. Maintained reduction of intraocular pressure by prostaglandin F2_-1- isopropyl ester applied in multiple doses in ocular hypertensive and glaucoma patients. Ophthalmology. 1989;96:1329–1337.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Christiansen GA, Nau CB, McLaren JW, Johnson DH. Mechanism of Ocular Hypotensive Action of Bimatoprost (Lumigan) in Patients with Ocular Hypertension or Glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 2004;111:1658–1662.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Parrish RK, Palmberg P, Sheu WP. A comparison of latanoprost, bimatoprost, and travoprost in patients with elevated intraocular pressure: a 12-week, randomized, masked-evaluator, multicenter study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2003;135:688–703.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Asrani S, Zeimer R, Wilensky J, et al. Large diurnal fluctuations in intraocular pressure are an independent risk factor in patients with glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2000;9(2):134–142.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hedman K, Watson PG, Alm A. The effect of latanoprost on intraocular pressure during 2 years of treatment. Surv Ophthalmol. 2002;47(Suppl 1):S65-S76.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chrai SS, Makoid MC, Eriksen SP, et al. Drop size and initial dosing frequency problems of topically applied ophthalmic drugs. J Pharm Sci. 1974;63(3):333–338.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Patel SC, Spaeth GL. Compliance in patients prescribed glaucoma medications. Ophthalmic Surg. 1995;26(3):233–236.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Broadway DC, Grierson I, O’Brien C, et al. Adverse effects of topical antiglaucoma medication. Arch Ophthalmol. 1994;112:1437–1445.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kass MA, Heuer DK, Higginbotham EJ, et al. The ocular hypertension treatment study: a randomized trial determines that topical ocular hypotensive medication delays or prevents the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 2002;120(6):701–713.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lichter PR, Musch DC, Gillespie BW, et al. Interim clinical outcomes in the collaborative initial glaucoma treatment study comparing initial treatment randomized to medications or surgery. Ophthalmology. 2001;108(11):1943–1953.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Covert D, Robin AL. Adjunctive glaucoma therapy use associated with travoprost, bimatoprost, and latanoprost. Curr Med Res Opin. 2006;22(5):971–976.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Van der Valk R, Webers CA, Schouten JS, Zeegers MP, Hendrikse F, Prins MH. Intraocular pressure-lowering effects of all commonly used glaucoma drugs: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. Ophthalmology. 2005;112:1177–1185.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gandolfi SA, Cimino L. Effect of bimatoprost on patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension who are nonresponders to latanoprost. Ophthalmology. 2003;110(3):609–614.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Realini T, Fechtner RD. 56, 000 ways to treat glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 2002;109(11):1955–1956.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hughes E, Spry P, Diamond J. 24-hour monitoring of intraocular pressure in glaucoma management: a retrospective review. J Glaucoma. 2003;12(3):232–236.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nouri-Mahdavi K, Hoffman D, Coleman AL, et al. Predictive factors for glaucomatous visual field progression in the Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study. Ophthalmology. 2004;111(9):1627–1635.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Toris CB, Gleason ML, Camras CB, et al. Effects of brimonidine on aqueous humor dynamics in human eyes. Arch Ophthalmol. 1995;113:1514–1517.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Katz LJ. Twelve-month evaluation of brimonidine-purite in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension. J Glaucoma. 2002;11:119–126.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lee DA, Gornbein JA. Effectiveness and safety of brimonidine as adjunctive therapy for patients with elevated intraocular pressure in a large, open-label community trial. J Glaucoma. 2001;10(3):220–226.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Erdogan H, Toker I, Arici MK, et al. A short-term study of the additive effect of latanoprost 0.005% and brimonidine 0.2%. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2003;47(5):473–478.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mundorf T, Noecker RJ, Earl M. Ocular hypotensive efficacy of brimonidine 0.15% as adjunctive therapy with latanoprost 0.005% in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Adv Ther. 2007;24:302–309.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wilson RP, Kanal N, Spaeth GL. Timolol: its effectiveness in different types of glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 1979;86:43–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rettig ES, Larsson LI, Brubaker RF. The effect of topical timolol on epinephrine-stimulated aqueous humor flow in sleeping humans. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1994;35:554–559.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Liu JH, Kripke DF, Weinreb RN. Comparison of the nocturnal effects of once-daily timolol and latanoprost on intraocular pressure. Am J Ophthalmol. 2004;138:389–395.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rulo AH, Greve EL, Hoyng PF. Additive effect of latanoprost, a prostaglandin F2 alpha analogue and timolol in patients with elevated intraocular pressure. Br J Ophthalmol. 1994;78(12):899–902.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Stewart WC, Day DG, Sharpe ED, et al. Efficacy and safety of timolol solution once daily vs. timolol gel added to latanoprost. Am J Ophthalmol. 1999;128(6):692–696.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bucci MG. Intraocular pressure-lowering effects of latanoprost monotherapy versus latanoprost or pilocarpine in combination with timolol: a randomized, observer-masked multicenter study in patients with open-angle glaucoma. Italian Latanoprost Study Group. J Glaucoma. 1999;8(1):24–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Manni G, Centofanti M, Parravano M, et al. A 6-month randomized clinical trial of bimatoprost 0.03% versus the association of timolol 0.5% and latanoprost 0.005% in glaucomatous patients. Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2004;242(9):767–770.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Higginbotham EJ, Feldman R, Stiles M, et al. Latanoprost and timolol combination therapy vs. monotherapy: one-year randomized trial. Arch Ophthalmol. 2002;120(7):915–922.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wang R-F, Serle JB, Podos SM, et al. MK-507 (L-671, 152), a topically active carbonic anhydrase inhibitor, reduces aqueous humor production in monkeys. Arch Ophthalmol. 1991;109:1297–1299.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    DeSantis L. Preclinical overview of brinzolamide. Surv Ophthalmol. 2000;44(Suppl 2):S119-S129.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Silver LH. Clinical efficacy and safety of brinzolamide (Azopt), a new topical carbonic anhydrase inhibitor for primary open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Brinzolamide Primary Therapy Study Group. Am J Ophthalmol. 1998;126(3):400–408.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Arici MK, Topalkara A, Guler C. Additive effect of latanoprost and dorzolamide in patients with elevated intraocular pressure. Int Ophthalmol. 1998;22(1):37–42.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Chiselita D, Apatachioae I, Poiata I. The ocular hypotensive effect of the combination of latanoprost with dorzolamide. Oftalmologia. 1999;46(4):39–45.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Franks W; Brinzolamide Study Group. Ocular hypotensive efficacy and safety of brinzolamide ophthalmic suspension 1% added to travoprost ophthalmic solution 0.004% therapy in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Curr Med Res Opin. 2006;22(9):1643–1649.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Shoji N, Ogata H, Suyama H, et al. Intraocular pressure lowering effect of brinzolamide 1.0% as adjunctive therapy to latanoprost 0.005% in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension: an uncontrolled, open-label study. Curr Med Res Opin. 2005;21(4):503–508.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Nakamoto K, Yasuda N. Effect of concomitant use of latanoprost and brinzolamide on 24-hour variation of IOP in normal-tension glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2007;16(4):352–357.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    O’Connor DJ, Martone JF, Mead A. Additive intraocular pressure lowering effect of various medications with latanoprost. Am J Ophthalmol. 2002;133(6):836–837.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Reis R, Queiroz CF, Santos LC, et al. A randomized, investigator-masked, 4-week study comparing timolol maleate 0.5%, brinzolamide 1%, and brimonidine tartrate 0.2% as adjunctive therapies to travoprost 0.004% in adults with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Clin Ther. 2006;28(4):552–559.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Konstas AG, Karabatsas CH, Lallos N, et al. 24-hour intrao­cular pressures with brimonidine purite versus dorzolamide added to latanoprost in primary open-angle glaucoma subjects. Ophthalmology. 2005;112(4):603–608.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Noecker RJ. Brimonidine purite 0.15% versus dorzolamide 2% used as adjunctive therapy to latanoprost. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Glaucoma Society, San Francisco, CA, 2007 (poster).Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Feldman RM, Tanna AP, Gross RL, et al. Comparison of the ocular hypotensive efficacy of adjunctive brimonidine 0.15% or brinzolamide 1% in combination with travoprost 0.004%. Ophthalmology. 2007;114(7):1248–1254.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Hollo G, Chiselita D, Petkova N, et al. The efficacy and safety of timolol maleate versus brinzolamide each given twice daily added to travoprost in patients with ocular hypertension or primary open-angle glaucoma. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2006;16(6):816–823.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Martinez-de-la-Casa JM, Castillo A, Garcia-Feijoo J, et al. Concomitant administration of travoprost and brinzolamide versus fixed latanoprost/timolol combined therapy: three-month comparison of efficacy and safety. Curr Med Res Opin. 2004;20(9):1333–1339.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Netland PA, Michael M, Rosner SA, et al. Brimonidine Purite and bimatoprost compared with timolol and latanoprost in patients with glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Adv Ther. 2003;20(1):20–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Mundorf T, Dirks M, Noecker RJ, et al. Brimonidine purite 0.15% versus timolol 0.5% as adjunctive therapy with lipids. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Glaucoma Society, Snowbird, UT, 2005.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Nietgen GW, Schmidt J, Hesse L, et al. Muscarinic receptor functioning and distribution in the eye: molecular basis and implications for clinical diagnosis and therapy (review). Eye. 1999;13(Pt 3a):285–300.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Toris CB, Zhan G-L, Zhao J, Camras CB, Yablonski ME. Potential mechanism for the additivity of pilocarpine and latanoprost. Am J Ophthalmol. 2001;131:722–728.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Fristrom B, Nilsson SE. Interaction of PhXA41, a new prostaglandin analogue, with pilocarpine. A study on patients with elevated intraocular pressure. Arch Ophthalmol. 1993;111(5):662–665.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Camras CB, Wang R-F, Podos SM. Effect of pilocarpine applied before or after prostaglandin F2a on IOP in glaucomatous monkey eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1990;31:150.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Villumsen J, Alm A. Effect of the prostaglandin F2a analogue PhXA41 in eyes treated with pilocarpine and timolol. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1992;33:1248.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Friström B, Nilsson SEG. Interaction of PhXA41, a new prostaglandin analogue, with pilocarpine. A study on patients with elevated intraocular pressure. Arch Ophthalmol. 1993;111:662–665.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Kent AR, Vroman DT, Thomas TJ, Herbert RL, Crosson CE. Interaction of pilocarpine with latanoprost in patientswith glaucoma and ocular hypertension. J Glaucoma. 1999;8:257–262.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Shin DH, McCracken MS, Bendel RE, et al. The additive effect of latanoprost to maximum-tolerated medications with low-dose, high-dose and no pilocarpine therapy. Ophthalmology. 1999;106:386–390.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Rulo AH, Greve EL, Hoyng PF. Additive ocular hypotensive effect of latanoprost and acetazolamide. A short-term study in patients with elevated intraocular pressure. Ophthalmology. 1997;104(9):1503–1507.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Epstein DL, Grant WM. Carbonic anhydrase inhibitor side effects. Arch Ophthalmol. 1977;95:1378–1382.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Wallace TR, Fraunfelder FT, Petursson GJ, Epstein DL. Decreased libido - a side effect of carbonic anhydrase inhibitor. Ann Ophthalmol. 1979;11:1563–1566.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Epstein RJ, Allen RC, Lunde MW. Organic impotence associated with carbonic anhydrase inhibitor therapy for glaucoma. Ann Ophthalmol. 1987;19:48–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Heller I, Halevy J, Cohen S, Theodor E. Significant metabolic acidosis induced by acetazolamide: not a rare complication. Arch Intern Med. 1985;145:1815–1817.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Kass MA, Kolker AE, Gordon M, et al. Acetazolamide and urolithiasis. Ophthalmology. 1981;88:261–265.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Howlett SA. Renal failure associated with acetazolamide therapy for glaucoma. South Med J. 1975;68:504–506.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Higenbottam T, Ogg CS, Saxton HM. Acute renal failure from the use of acetazolamide (Diamox). Postgrad Med J. 1978;54:127–128.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Fraunfelder FT, Meyer SM, Bagby GC Jr, Dreis MW. Hematologic reactions to carbonic anhydrase inhibitors. Am J Ophthalmol. 1985;100:79–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Werblin TP, Pollack IP, Liss RA. Blood dyscrasias in patients using methazolamide (Neptazane) for glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 1980;87:350–354.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Weiss IS. Hirsutism after chronic administration of acetazolamide. Am J Ophthalmol. 1974;78:327–328.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Shirato S, Kagaya F, Suzuki Y, Joukou S. Stevens-Johnson syndrome induced by methazolamide treatment. Arch Ophthalmol. 1997;115:550–553.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Boyle JE, Ghosh K, Gieser DK, et al. A randomized trial comparing the dorzolamide-timolol combination given twice daily to monotherapy with timolol and dorzolamide. Ophthalmology. 1999;106(12 Suppl):10–16.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Orzalesi N, Rossetti L, Bottoli A, et al. The effect of latanoprost, brimonidine, and a fixed combination of timolol and dorzolamide on circadian intraocular pressure in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Arch Ophthalmol. 2003;121(4):453–457.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Bastien N, Psaradellis F, Sampalis J, et al. Effect of dorzolamide-timolol (Cosopt(R)) co-administered with latanoprostTM or dorzolamide-timolol alone in patients with open angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension not adequately controlled on latanoprost. Presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Fort Lauderdale, FL, 2006:441-B176.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Sherwood MB, Craven ER, Chou C, et al. Twice-daily 0.2% brimonidine-0.5% timolol fixed-combination therapy vs monotherapy with timolol or brimonidine in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension: a 12-month randomized trial. Arch Ophthalmol. 2006;124(9):1230–1238.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Nixon DR, Hollander DA. Comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of twice-daily CombiganTM vs. Cosopt(R) fixed-combination therapies. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Ophthalmology, New Orleans, LA, 2007.Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Hommer A; Ganfort Investigators Group I. A double-masked, rando­mized, parallel comparison of a fixed combination of bimatoprost 0.03%/timolol 0.5% with non-fixed combination use in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2007; 17(1):53–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Hughes BA, Bacharach J, Craven ER, et al. A three-month, multicenter, double-masked study of the safety and efficacy of travoprost 0.004%/timolol 0.5% ophthalmic solution compared to travoprost 0.004% ophthalmic solution and timolol 0.5% dosed concomitantly in subjects with open angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. J Glaucoma. 2005;14(5):392–399.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Neelakantan A, Vaishnav HD, Iyer SA, et al. Is addition of a third or fourth antiglaucoma medication effective? J Glaucoma. 2004;13(2):130–136.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Babizhayev MA, Brodskaya MW, Mamedov NG, et al. Clinical, structural and molecular phototherapy effects of laser irradiation on the trabecular meshwork of human glaucomatous eyes. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1990;228(1):90–100.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Kramer TR, Noecker RJ. Comparison of the morphologic changes after selective laser trabeculoplasty and argon laser trabeculoplasty in human eye bank eyes. Ophthalmology. 2001;108(4):773–779.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Damji KF, Bovell AM, Hodge WG, et al. Selective laser trabeculoplasty versus argon laser trabeculoplasty: results from a 1-year randomised clinical trial. Br J Ophthalmol. 2006;90(12):1490–1494.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Damji KF, Shah KC, Rock WJ, et al. Selective laser trabeculoplasty versus argon laser trabeculoplasty: a prospective randomised clinical trial. Br J Ophthalmol. 1999;83(6):718–722.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Ruderman JM, Welch DB, Smith MF, et al. A randomized study of 5-fluorouracil and filtration surgery. Am J Ophthalmol. 1987;104(3):218–224.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Palmer SS. Mitomycin as adjunct chemotherapy with trabeculectomy. Ophthalmology. 1991;98(3):317–321.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Hayreh SS. Anatomy and physiology of the optic nerve head. Trans Am Acad Ophthalmol Otolaryngol. 1974;78(2):OP240-OP254.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Tielsch JM, Katz J, Sommer A, Quigley HA, Javitt JC. Hypertension, perfusion pressure, and primary open-angle glaucoma. A population-based assessment. Arch Ophthalmol. 1995;113(2):216–221.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Bonomi L, Marchini G, Marraffa M, Bernardi P, Morbio R, Varotto A. Vascular risk factors for primary open angle glaucoma: the Egna-Neumarkt Study. Ophthalmology. 2000;107(7):1287.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Quigley HA, West SK, Rodriguez J, Munoz B, Klein R, Snyder R. The prevalence of glaucoma in a population-based study of Hispanic subjects: Proyecto VER. Arch Ophthalmol. 2001;119(12):1819–1826.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Leske MC, Connell AM, Wu SY, et al. Incidence of open-angle glaucoma: the Barbados Eye Studies. The Barbados Eye Studies Group. Arch Ophthalmol. 2001;119(1):89–95.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Leske MC, Wu S-Y, Hennis A, Honkanen R, Nemesure B. Risk factors for incident open-angle glaucoma: the Barbados Eye Studies. The Barbados Eye Studies Group. Ophthalmology. 2008;115:85–93.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Quaranta L, Gandolfo F, Turano R, et al. Effects of topical hypotensive drugs on circadian IOP, blood pressure, and calculated diastolic ocular perfusion pressure in patients with glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006;47:2917–2923.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Orzalesi N, Rossetti L, Invernizzi T, et al. Effect of timolol, latanoprost, and dorzolamide on circadian IOP in glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000;41(9):2566–2573.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Barnebey H, Kwok SY. Patients' acceptance of a switch from dorzolamide to brinzolamide for the treatment of glaucoma in a clinical practice setting. Clin Ther. 2000;22(10):1204–1212.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Silver LH. Ocular comfort of brinzolamide 1.0% ophthalmic suspension compared with dorzolamide 2.0% ophthalmic solution: results from two multicenter comfort studies. Brinzolamide Comfort Study Group. Surv Ophthalmol. 2000;44(suppl 2):S141-S145.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Sall K. The efficacy and safety of brinzolamide 1% ophthalmic suspension (Azopt) as a primary therapy in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Brinzolamide Primary Therapy Study Group. Surv Ophthalmol. 2000;suppl 2:S155-S162.Google Scholar


  1. Boger WP 3rd. Short-term “escape” and longterm “drift.” The dissipation effects of the beta adrenergic blocking agents. Surv Ophthalmol. 1983;28(suppl):235–242.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Choudhri S, Wand M, Shields MB. A comparison of dorzolamide-timolol combination versus the concomitant drugs. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000;130:832–833.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Cox JA, Mollan SP, Bankart J, Robinson R. Efficacy of anti­glaucoma fixed combination therapy versus unfixed components in reducing intraocular pressure: a systematic review. Br J Ophthalmol. 2008;92:729–734.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Lichter PR, Musch DC, Gillespie BW; the CIGTS Study Group Interim clinical outcomes in the Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study comparing initial treatment randomized to medications or surgery. Ophthalmology. 2001;108:1943–1953.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. National Drug Code Data, July 2005. <> Accessed 03.04.09.
  6. Neelakantan A, Vaishnav HD, Iyer SA, Sherwood MB. Is addition of a third or fourth antiglaucoma medication effective? J Glaucoma. 2004;13:130–136.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Patel SC, Spaeth GL. Compliance in patients prescribed eyedrops for glaucoma. Ophthalmic Surg. 1995;26:233–235.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Pisella PJ, Pouliquen P, Baudouin C. Prevalence of ocular symptoms and signs with preserved and preservative free glaucoma medication. Br J Ophthalmol. 2002;86:418–423.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Robin AL, Covert D. Does adjunctive glaucoma therapy affect adherence to the initial primary therapy? Ophthalmology. 2005;112:863–868.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Sherwood, Craven ER, Chou C, et al. Twice-daily 0.2% brimonidine-0.5% timolol fixed combination therapy vs monotherapy with timolol or brimonidine in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension: a 12-month randomized trial. Arch Ophthalmol. 2006; 124(9):1230–1238.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jess T. Whitson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of OphthalmologyUT Southwestern Medical Center at DallasDallasUSA

Personalised recommendations