An Eight-week, Multicentric, Randomized, Interventional, Open-label, Phase 4, Parallel Comparison of the Efficacy and Tolerability of the Fixed Combination of Timolol Maleate 0.5%/Brimonidine Tartrate 0.2% Versus Fixed Combination of Timolol Maleate 0.5%/Dorzolamide 2% in Patients With Elevated Intraocular Pressure

Purpose: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of the fixed combination of timolol maleate 0.5%/brimonidine tartrate 0.2% versus fixed combination of timolol maleate 0.5%/dorzolamide 2% in patients with elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) over 8 weeks. Patients and Methods: This 8-week, multicentric. interventional, randomized, open-label, parallel group study was conducted Lit 4 centers in Brazil and 1 center in Argentina. Patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension were randomized to receive bilaterally fixed combination of brimonidine/timolol maleate 0.5% or fixed combination of dorzolamide 2%/timolol 0.5% twice daily at 8:00 AM and 8:00 PM. A modified diurnal tension curve (8:00 AM 10:30 AM, 02:00 PM, and 4:00 PM) followed by the water drinking test (WDT), which estimates IOP peak of diurnal tension curve, were performed in the baseline and week-8 visits. Adverse events data were recorded at each visit. Results: A total of 210 patients were randomized (brimonidine/timolol, n = 111; dorzolamide/timolol, n = 99). Mean baseline IOP was 23.43 +/- 3.22 mm Hg and 23.43 +/- 4.06 mm Hg in the patients treated with brimonidine/timolol and dorzolamide/timolol, respectively (P = 0.993). Mean diurnal IOP reduction after 8 weeks were 7.02 +/- 3.06 mm Hg and 6.91 +/- 3.67 mm Hg. respectively (P = 0.811). The adjusted difference between groups (analysis of covariance) Lit week 8 was not statistically significant (P = 0.847). Mean baseline WDT peak was 27.79 +/- 4.29 mm Hg in the brimonidine/timolol group and 27.68 +/- 5.46 mm Hg in the dorzolamide/timolol group. After 8 weeks of treatment, mean WDT peaks were 20.94 +/- 3.76 mm Hg (P < 0.001) and 20.98 +/- 4.19 (P < 0.001), respectively. The adjusted difference between groups (analysis of covariance) was not statistically significant (P = 0.469). No statistical difference in terms of adverse events was Found between groups. Conclusions: Both fixed combinations were capable of significantly reducing the mean diurnal IOP, mean diurnal peak, and mean WDT peak after 8 weeks of treatment. Also, both fixed combinations are well tolerated with few side effects.

Effects of estradiol and norethisterone on lipids, insulin resistance and carotid flow

Objectives: To evaluate the lipid profile, insulin resistance and vasomotricity, and the interaction between these factors, in postmenopausal women receiving hormone therapy. Methods: A prospective, randomized, double-blind study was carried out in which 77 postmenopausal women received one of the three treatment regimens: (A) 2 mg oral micronized estradiol (E(2)) (n = 25); (B) 2 mg oral E(2) + 1 mg oral norethisterone acetate (NETA) (n = 28); or Q placebo (n = 24), daily for 6 months. Evaluations were carried out at baseline and at the end of treatment on lipid and lipoprotein profiles, homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) and pulsatility index (PI) of the internal carotid artery by Doppler ultrasonography. Results: Mean increases of 15.6% and 2.4% and a reduction of 6.4% in high-density lipoprotein (HDL) levels were found for the E(2), E(2) + NETA and placebo groups, respectively. Reductions of 9.5% and 3.7% and an increase of 12.1% in low-density lipoprotein (LDL), and reductions of 20.0% and 3.8% and an increase of 28.8% in the LDL:HDL ratio were found for the E(2), E(2) + NETA and placebo groups, respectively (p < 0.001 in all cases). Insulin levels and HOMA-IR decreased 12.8% and 12.3% in the E2 group and increased 12.9% and 16.0% in the E(2) + NETA group (p < 0.05), respectively. Carotid PI following treatment was 1.18 +/- 0.23, 1.38 +/- 0.20 and 1.41 +/- 0.21 for the E(2), E(2) + NETA and placebo groups, respectively (p = 0.0006). Conclusions: Oral estrogen therapy led to an improvement in lipid profile, insulin resistance and carotid blood flow, which was cancelled when NETA was associated. (c) 2008 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.