Brimonidine and latanoprost as adjunctive therapy

Commercially available prostaglandin analogs for the reduction of intraocular pressure: similarities and differences

Over the last 12 years, the pharmacological management of glaucoma and ocular hypertension has significantly changed with the introduction of the prostaglandin analogs, specifically, latanoprost, bimatoprost, and travoprost. Their ability to effectively reduce intraocular pressure with once-per-day dosing, their comparable ocular tolerability with timolol, and their general lack of systemic side effects have made them the mainstay of pharmacological therapy for glaucoma and ocular hypertension in most parts of the world. A review of their pharmacology reveals that they are all prodrugs that are converted to their respective free acids within the eye to activate the prostanoid FP receptor and to reduce intraocular pressure by enhancing the uveoscleral and the trabecular meshwork outflow pathways. A review of numerous prospective, randomized comparative studies indicates that no clinically significant differences exist among these agents regarding their ability to lower intraocular pressure.

Latanoprost or Brimonidine as Treatment for Elevated Intraocular Pressure

PURPOSE

To compare the efficacy and tolerability of latanoprost or brimonidine in patients with elevated intraocular pressure (IOP).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective, randomized, masked-evaluator, parallel-group, multicenter study in the United States included patients with primary open angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Patients received latanoprost 0.005% once daily (8:00 AM; n = 152) or brimonidine tartrate 0.2% twice daily (8:00 AM and 8:00 PM; n = 151). Patients underwent evaluation at screening, baseline (randomization), and after 0.5, 3, and 6 months of treatment. IOP was measured at 8:00 AM, 10:00 AM, noon, and 4:00 PM at baseline and the months 3 and 6 visits, and at 8:00 AM only at week 2. The main outcome measure was the difference in diurnal IOP change from baseline to month 6 between treatment groups. Adverse events were recorded at each visit.

RESULTS

Baseline mean diurnal IOP levels were similar between groups. At month 6, the adjusted mean (+/- SEM) diurnal IOP reduction was 5.7 +/- 0.3 mm Hg in the latanoprost group and 3.1 +/- 0.3 mm Hg in patients receiving brimonidine (P < 0.001). The mean difference in diurnal IOP reduction was 2.5 +/- 0.3 mm Hg (95% CI: 1.9, 3.2; P < 0.001). Five times more patients receiving brimonidine than latanoprost were withdrawn from the study due to adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Latanoprost instilled once daily is more effective and better tolerated than brimonidine administered twice daily for the treatment of patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension. During therapy, the range of daily fluctuation of IOP is less for latanoprost compared with brimonidine.

A comparison of the fixed combination of latanoprost and timolol with the unfixed combination of brimonidine and timolol in patients with elevated intraocular pressure. A six month, evaluator masked, multicentre study in Europe

PURPOSE

To compare the intraocular pressure (IOP) reducing effect and safety of fixed combination (FC) latanoprost/timolol with unfixed combination (UFC) brimonidine/timolol in patients with increased IOP.

METHODS

In this 6 month, randomised, evaluator masked, parallel group European study, patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension and IOP > or =21 mm Hg on monotherapy or >16 mm Hg on dual therapy received either FC latanoprost/timolol at 8:00AM or UFC brimonidine/timolol at 8:00AM and 8:00PM. The primary outcome was the difference from baseline to month 6 in mean diurnal IOP reduction.

RESULTS

325 of 334 randomised patients were included in intent to treat analyses (FC latanoprost/timolol, 163; UFC brimonidine/timolol, 162). Baseline diurnal IOP levels were similar: FC latanoprost/timolol, 26.4 (SD 2.7) mm Hg; UFC brimonidine/timolol, 26.5 (SD 2.8) mm Hg (p = 0.851). At month 6, levels were 16.9 (SD 2.8) mm Hg in FC latanoprost/timolol patients and 18.2 (SD 3.1) mm Hg in UFC brimonidine/timolol patients (p<0.001). No adverse events were reported by 76.4% and 75.5% of patients receiving FC latanoprost/timolol versus UFC brimonidine/timolol, respectively. Larger proportions of brimonidine/timolol treated patients reported study medication related adverse events (18.6% v 7.3%) and discontinued study participation because of this (10.8% v 1.8%).

CONCLUSION

Fixed combination latanoprost/timolol administered once daily is both more effective and better tolerated than twice daily dosing with UFC brimonidine/timolol.