Brinzolamide/brimonidine fixed-dose combination bid as an adjunct to a prostaglandin analog for open-angle glaucoma/ocular hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the additive intraocular pressure–lowering effect of twice-daily brinzolamide 1%/brimonidine 0.2% fixed-dose combination (BBFC) as an adjunct to a prostaglandin analog (PGA) in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension insufficiently controlled with PGA monotherapy. Methods: In this Phase 4, double-masked trial, patients aged ⩾18 years, with a mean intraocular pressure of ⩾19 and <32 mm Hg in at least one eye were randomized (1:1) to receive BBFC + PGA ( n = 96) or vehicle + PGA ( n = 92) for 6 weeks. The primary endpoint was the mean change in diurnal intraocular pressure from baseline (averaged over 09:00 and 11:00 h) at Week 6. Results: The mean diurnal intraocular pressure at baseline was similar in the BBFC + PGA (22.8 mm Hg) and vehicle + PGA (22.9 mm Hg) groups. The least squares mean change in diurnal intraocular pressure from baseline at Week 6 was greater with BBFC + PGA (−5.59 mm Hg (95% confidence interval: −6.2 to −5.0)) than with vehicle + PGA (−2.15 mm Hg (95% confidence interval: −2.7 to −1.6)); the treatment difference was statistically significant in favor of BBFC + PGA (−3.44 mm Hg, (95% confidence interval: −4.2 to −2.7); p < 0.001). Ocular adverse events were reported in 21.1% and 8.7% of patients in the BBFC + PGA and vehicle + PGA groups, respectively. The most frequent ocular adverse event was ocular hyperemia (5.3%) in the BBFC + PGA group and blurred vision (2.2%) in the vehicle + PGA group. Conclusion: BBFC + PGA significantly reduced mean diurnal intraocular pressure than PGA alone in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. The safety findings with BBFC + PGA were consistent with the known safety profile of the individual medications.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".