A Randomized, Prospective Study of Bimatoprost 0.01% or Travoprost/Timolol in Patients Previously Treated with Latanoprost and Timolol to Reduce Intraocular Pressure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and safety of bimatoprost 0.01% with the fixed combination travoprost 0.004%/timolol 0.5% in subjects with stable intraocular pressure (IOP) control on latanoprost and timolol. METHODS: This was a randomized, prospective, investigator masked, crossover study comparing bimatoprost 0.01% with travoprost/timolol in 40 subjects diagnosed with primary open-angle glaucoma. Subjects were randomized to bimatoprost 0.01% qpm or travoprost/timolol qam and followed for 12 weeks, at which time they were crossed over to the alternate medication and followed for another 12 weeks. Intraocular pressure and hyperemia (rated on a standardized, 5-point photographic scale) were evaluated as change from baseline to 12 weeks following each therapy, and subject preference was elicited at the end of the study. RESULTS: Both treatments were well tolerated and the majority of patients achieved effective IOP control relative to baseline. After 12 weeks of treatment, mean reductions from baseline IOP were -1.68 mmHg OD (right eye) and -1.58 mmHg OS (left eye) with bimatoprost and -0.45 mmHg OD and -0.53 mmHg OS with travoprost/timolol, although the differences between drugs were not statistically significant. Hyperemia scores were significantly higher with the fixed combination of travoprost/timolol than bimatoprost 0.01% as measured at 8 am (both P<0.01). Subject preference at the end of the study was more than 3 to 1 in favor of bimatoprost, with most citing greater tolerability. CONCLUSION: Bimatoprost 0.01% and travoprost/timolol are both effective at reducing IOP in subjects with stable IOP control on latanoprost and timolol, but bimatoprost 0.01% is associated with less hyperemia.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".