Comparison of allergy rates in glaucoma patients receiving brimonidine 0.2% monotherapy versus fixed-combination brimonidine 0.2%–timolol 0.5% therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the incidence of ocular allergy in glaucoma patients prospectively treated with 0.2% brimonidine-0.5% timolol fixed combination (Combigan) compared with the incidence of ocular allergy in patients treated with 0.2% brimonidine (Alphagan) monotherapy. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a comparative, non-randomized, single-site, interventional study involving patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or exfoliation syndrome who had not previously used brimonidine in any formulation and had no history of ocular allergy. In one study arm, 102 patients were prospectively treated with twice-daily 0.2% brimonidine-0.5% timolol fixed combination. In the other study arm, medical charts at the same center were reviewed to identify a control group of 102 patients who had been treated with twice-daily 0.2% brimonidine monotherapy. Follow-up was at 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18 months of treatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Ocular allergy defined as the presence of follicles and redness severe enough to warrant discontinuation of the medication. RESULTS: The incidence of ocular allergy over 18 months of treatment was 8.8% (9/102) in the fixed-combination group compared with 17.6% (18/102) in the brimonidine group (p=0.097). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis suggested that ocular allergy may be reduced or delayed in patients treated with the brimonidine-timolol fixed combination (p=0.066). CONCLUSIONS: The brimonidine-timolol fixed combination was associated with a 50% lower incidence in ocular allergy compared with 0.2% brimonidine monotherapy. This difference between treatments was not statistically significant (p=0.097) but is likely to be clinically important. Additional studies are needed to evaluate the incidence of ocular allergy associated with brimonidine-timolol fixed combination treatment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".