Comparison of morning versus evening dosing and 24-h post-dose efficacy of travoprost compared with latanoprost in patients with open-angle glaucoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the IOP-lowering efficacy of a.m.-dosed travoprost and latanoprost at 24-h post-dose. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Open-angle glaucoma patients not naïve to prostaglandin therapy and currently controlled on p.m.-dosed (2100) latanoprost (n = 21) or travoprost (n = 30) had baseline IOPs measured at 0900. In a randomized, single-masked, crossover design, patients received travoprost (Travatan † ) or latanoprost (Xalatan ‡ ) at 0900 for 4 weeks, then were crossed over to receive the second prostaglandin for another 4 weeks. Treatment IOP was measured at 0900 prior to morning dose at both 4 and 8 week visits. Patient dosing preference (a.m./p.m.) was surveyed on exit. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Intraocular pressure (IOP). † Travatan is a registered trade name of Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Fort Worth, TX, USA ‡ Xalatan is a registered trade name of Pfizer, New York, NY, USA. RESULTS: The mean IOP in the first period when all patients were dosed in the evening was assessed 12 h after dosing at 09:00 and it was similar in the two treatment groups (mean ± standard deviation: 17.9 ± 2.7 mmHg for travoprost versus 17.7 ± 2.5 mmHg for latanoprost, p = 0.812). In the a.m.-dosing crossover comparison, the 24-h post-dose IOP was significantly lower ( p < 0.001) on travoprost (16.9 ± 3.1 mmHg) compared to latanoprost (18.6 ± 3.3 mmHg). In the exit survey, 51% of patients preferred a.m.-dosing. CONCLUSIONS: a.m.-dosed travoprost is superior to a.m.-dosed latanoprost by 1.7 mmHg at 24-h post-dose.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".