Retrospective Analysis of Switching Bimatoprost 0.01% to Bimatoprost 0.03% in Patients with Various Types of Glaucoma and Ocular Hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Studies comparing the two different formulations of bimatoprost, 0.03% and 0.01%, have shown similar efficacy, but a better adverse effect profile for bimatoprost 0.01% in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) and ocular hypertension (OHT). This study assesses the efficacy and tolerability of switching from bimatoprost 0.01% to 0.03% in a patient population with broader spectrum of diagnoses in a real-world clinical setting. Design: Single-centre retrospective observational switch study. Methods: -test was performed to compare IOP at different time points versus baseline. Worsening of hyperemia and other adverse events after the switch were identified. Subgroup analysis was performed for POAG and OHT, secondary open-angle glaucoma (SOAG, including pseudoexfoliative and pigmentary glaucoma), normal tension glaucoma (NTG), and angle closure glaucoma (ACG). Results: The study population consisted of 248 eyes (143 patients). There was a significant mean IOP reduction of 1.0 ± 3.7 mmHg (p < 0.001, n = 248) from baseline to week-6 and 1.6 ± 4.0 mmHg (p < 0.001, n = 142) from baseline to week-12 after switch. The IOP reduction was statistically significant in patients with POAG and OHT (6-week: 1.0 ± 3.8 mmHg, n = 76; 12-week: 1.5 ± 4.1 mmHg, n = 49), ACG (6-week: 1.5 ± 4.1 mmHg, n = 72; 12-week: 2.3 ± 4.5 mmHg, n = 46), and NTG (6-week: 0.83 ± 2.5 mmHg, n = 42; 12-week: 1.12 ± 2.1 mmHg, n = 25). Patients with SOAG did not show statistically significant reduction in IOP at 6- or 12-week after switch. Forty-two (29%) of 143 patients experienced adverse events, with the most common being hyperemia (16%). Conclusion: Significant reduction in IOP could be seen after switching from bimatoprost 0.01% to bimatoprost 0.03% in various types of glaucoma except SOAG. Intolerance after switch may be experienced, though not in the majority of cases.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".