4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

The safety and intraocular pressure-lowering efficacy of brimonidine tartrate 0.15% preserved with polyquaternium-1

Journal

OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 113, Issue 8, Pages 1333-1339

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2006.03.025

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: The safety and intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering efficacy of brimonidine tartrate 0.15% preserved with polyquaternium-1 were evaluated and compared with brimonidine tartrate 0.15% preserved with chlorine dioxide in patients with open-angle glaucoma (OAG) or ocular hypertension (OHT). Design: Randomized, double-masked, parallel group, multicenter equivalence study. Participants: Eight hundred forty-two patients randomized to the study treatments. Methods: Patients with OAG or OHT and with qualifying IOP (22-36 mmHg at 8 Ann on 2 eligibility visits after an appropriate washout period from previous treatment) were assigned randomly to either brimonidine tartrate 0.15% preserved with polyquaternium-1 (brimonidine PQ) or brimonidine tartrate 0.15% preserved with chlorine dioxide (brimonidine P) dosed 3 times daily and were followed up for 6 months. Approximately one half of the study sites continued to follow up their patients for an additional 6 months to obtain longer-term safety data. Results: Brimonidine PQ produced statistically significant and clinically relevant reductions from baseline ranging from 4.3 to 6.5 mmHg, which were statistically and clinically equivalent to brimonidine P at all 18 visit days and times. No safety concerns were identified based on an assessment of ocular and cardiovascular parameters. Patient discontinuations resulting from adverse events were similar for both groups and most of these were a result of signs or symptoms of ocular allergic reaction. Conclusions: Brimonidine PQ is equivalent in IOP-lowering efficacy and safety to brimonidine P.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available