↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Effect of preservative removal from fixed-combination bimatoprost/timolol on intraocular pressure lowering: a potential timolol dose–response phenomenon

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Ophthalmology, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 Mendeley
Title
Effect of preservative removal from fixed-combination bimatoprost/timolol on intraocular pressure lowering: a potential timolol dose–response phenomenon
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, March 2016
DOI 10.2147/opth.s98898
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jie Shen, Marina Bejanian

Abstract

Many patients with glaucoma require combination therapies to achieve target intraocular pressure (IOP) and preserve visual function. Ocular hypotensives often contain a preservative (eg, benzalkonium chloride [BAK]), but preservative-free (PF) formulations have been developed for patients with sensitivity. A Phase III study found the efficacy of bimatoprost 0.03%/timolol 0.5% (bim/tim, Ganfort(®)) PF to be equivalent to that of preserved bim/tim, although a trend favoring bim/tim PF was observed. As BAK is a corneal penetration enhancer, this literature review aims to explain these findings by exploring the relationship between timolol concentration and its IOP-lowering effect. Systematic searches were performed in Scopus and PubMed for clinical trials published in English between 1960 and July 2014 using the keywords "timolol", "intraocular pressure", and the concentrations "1%, 0.5%, OR 0.25%". Articles that directly compared IOP-lowering effects of ≥2 concentrations of timolol were identified by manual screening, and cross-checked for duplication. Seventeen studies that included 10-371 patients were evaluated; the majority were randomized (16/17), double-masked (14/17), and enrolled patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension (12/17). All studies investigated timolol in preserved formulations. Timolol concentrations tested ranged from 0.008% to 1.5%. Of 13 studies comparing timolol 0.25% versus 0.5%, two found the 0.25% dose to have greater IOP-lowering effects, and three reported the opposite; eight reported similar IOP lowering. Results also indicate that timolol 0.5% may be more effective than higher concentrations. The evidence suggests that timolol may have an inverted U-shaped dose-response curve, and that its optimal IOP-lowering concentration is between 0.25% and 0.5%. Compared with bim/tim, removal of the permeability enhancer BAK in bim/tim PF could have resulted in a lower timolol concentration at the target site, bringing the effective concentration within the 0.25%-0.5% range and enhancing the efficacy of bim/tim PF.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 24%
Other 3 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 6%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 6%
Other 2 12%
Unknown 4 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 35%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 6%
Engineering 1 6%
Unknown 6 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 January 2020.
All research outputs
#4,835,823
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#404
of 3,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,042
of 312,602 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#9
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,712 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 312,602 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.