Jeremy C Reitinger, David M Reed, Cameron Peres, Shan Fan, Vikas Gulati, Arash Kazemi, Arthur J Sit, Sayoko E Moroi, Carol B Toris
{"title":"了解个体眼压对拉坦前列素和替莫洛尔治疗的反应。","authors":"Jeremy C Reitinger, David M Reed, Cameron Peres, Shan Fan, Vikas Gulati, Arash Kazemi, Arthur J Sit, Sayoko E Moroi, Carol B Toris","doi":"10.1089/jop.2024.0112","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Purpose:</i></b> To identify reasons for variable intraocular pressure (IOP) responses to latanoprost and timolol in healthy volunteers and to generate the control group as part of Eye Dynamics and Engineering Network. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> In this multicenter, randomized, crossover study (NCT01677507), both eyes of 106 healthy subjects (212 eyes) were treated with latanoprost or timolol for 7 days, with a 6-week washout between treatments. Ocular biometrics, tonometry, and aqueous humor dynamics (AHD) were assessed at baseline and day 8 of each treatment. Subjects were divided into responders and nonresponders using cutoffs of >15% or >10% IOP reduction. Treatment effects and correlations were analyzed with paired t-tests. <b><i>Results:</i></b> More subjects responded to latanoprost (54%) than timolol (27%) at >15% cutoff (<i>p</i> < 0.01). Responders had higher mean baseline IOP than nonresponders for both drugs at both cutoffs (<i>p</i> < 0.01). Among timolol nonresponders (<i>n</i> = 56), 39% responded to latanoprost in both eyes, 20% in one eye, and 41% in neither. Among latanoprost nonresponders (<i>n</i> = 31), 13% responded to timolol in both eyes, 13% in one eye, and 74% in neither. Latanoprost increased uveoscleral outflow, while timolol reduced aqueous flow and outflow facility. Low baseline uveoscleral outflow was associated with latanoprost response. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Higher baseline IOP predicted better responses to both drugs. Higher baseline uveoscleral outflow predicted nonresponse to latanoprost. No AHD differences were linked to the timolol response. Timolol nonresponders were often responsive to latanoprost, but not vice versa.</p>","PeriodicalId":16689,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Ocular Pharmacology and Therapeutics","volume":" ","pages":"251-258"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Understanding Individual Intraocular Pressure Response to Treatment with Latanoprost and Timolol.\",\"authors\":\"Jeremy C Reitinger, David M Reed, Cameron Peres, Shan Fan, Vikas Gulati, Arash Kazemi, Arthur J Sit, Sayoko E Moroi, Carol B Toris\",\"doi\":\"10.1089/jop.2024.0112\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b><i>Purpose:</i></b> To identify reasons for variable intraocular pressure (IOP) responses to latanoprost and timolol in healthy volunteers and to generate the control group as part of Eye Dynamics and Engineering Network. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> In this multicenter, randomized, crossover study (NCT01677507), both eyes of 106 healthy subjects (212 eyes) were treated with latanoprost or timolol for 7 days, with a 6-week washout between treatments. Ocular biometrics, tonometry, and aqueous humor dynamics (AHD) were assessed at baseline and day 8 of each treatment. Subjects were divided into responders and nonresponders using cutoffs of >15% or >10% IOP reduction. Treatment effects and correlations were analyzed with paired t-tests. <b><i>Results:</i></b> More subjects responded to latanoprost (54%) than timolol (27%) at >15% cutoff (<i>p</i> < 0.01). Responders had higher mean baseline IOP than nonresponders for both drugs at both cutoffs (<i>p</i> < 0.01). Among timolol nonresponders (<i>n</i> = 56), 39% responded to latanoprost in both eyes, 20% in one eye, and 41% in neither. Among latanoprost nonresponders (<i>n</i> = 31), 13% responded to timolol in both eyes, 13% in one eye, and 74% in neither. Latanoprost increased uveoscleral outflow, while timolol reduced aqueous flow and outflow facility. Low baseline uveoscleral outflow was associated with latanoprost response. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Higher baseline IOP predicted better responses to both drugs. Higher baseline uveoscleral outflow predicted nonresponse to latanoprost. No AHD differences were linked to the timolol response. Timolol nonresponders were often responsive to latanoprost, but not vice versa.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16689,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Ocular Pharmacology and Therapeutics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"251-258\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Ocular Pharmacology and Therapeutics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1089/jop.2024.0112\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/4/14 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Ocular Pharmacology and Therapeutics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/jop.2024.0112","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Understanding Individual Intraocular Pressure Response to Treatment with Latanoprost and Timolol.
Purpose: To identify reasons for variable intraocular pressure (IOP) responses to latanoprost and timolol in healthy volunteers and to generate the control group as part of Eye Dynamics and Engineering Network. Methods: In this multicenter, randomized, crossover study (NCT01677507), both eyes of 106 healthy subjects (212 eyes) were treated with latanoprost or timolol for 7 days, with a 6-week washout between treatments. Ocular biometrics, tonometry, and aqueous humor dynamics (AHD) were assessed at baseline and day 8 of each treatment. Subjects were divided into responders and nonresponders using cutoffs of >15% or >10% IOP reduction. Treatment effects and correlations were analyzed with paired t-tests. Results: More subjects responded to latanoprost (54%) than timolol (27%) at >15% cutoff (p < 0.01). Responders had higher mean baseline IOP than nonresponders for both drugs at both cutoffs (p < 0.01). Among timolol nonresponders (n = 56), 39% responded to latanoprost in both eyes, 20% in one eye, and 41% in neither. Among latanoprost nonresponders (n = 31), 13% responded to timolol in both eyes, 13% in one eye, and 74% in neither. Latanoprost increased uveoscleral outflow, while timolol reduced aqueous flow and outflow facility. Low baseline uveoscleral outflow was associated with latanoprost response. Conclusions: Higher baseline IOP predicted better responses to both drugs. Higher baseline uveoscleral outflow predicted nonresponse to latanoprost. No AHD differences were linked to the timolol response. Timolol nonresponders were often responsive to latanoprost, but not vice versa.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Ocular Pharmacology and Therapeutics is the only peer-reviewed journal that combines the fields of ophthalmology and pharmacology to enable optimal treatment and prevention of ocular diseases and disorders. The Journal delivers the latest discoveries in the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of therapeutics for the treatment of ophthalmic disorders.
Journal of Ocular Pharmacology and Therapeutics coverage includes:
Glaucoma
Cataracts
Retinal degeneration
Ocular infection, trauma, and toxicology
Ocular drug delivery and biotransformation
Ocular pharmacotherapy/clinical trials
Ocular inflammatory and immune disorders
Gene and cell-based therapies
Ocular metabolic disorders
Ocular ischemia and blood flow
Proliferative disorders of the eye
Eyes on Drug Discovery - written by Gary D. Novack, PhD, featuring the latest updates on drug and device pipeline developments as well as policy/regulatory changes by the FDA.