ライフサイエンスコーパス: timolol

1 2 medications (fixed-combination dorzolamide-timolol).

2 -2) for timolol (P < .0001 for netarsudil vs timolol).

3 kers, including oral propranolol and topical timolol.

4 p38; these decreases were also reversed with timolol.

5 eta-adrenergic receptor-selective antagonist timolol.

6 entrations of the nonselective beta-blocker, timolol.

7 ut lower rates of appearance-altering AEs vs timolol.

8 .18 +/- 0.08 muL/min/mm Hg (P < 0.001) after timolol.

9 ndpoint was noninferiority of sepetaprost to timolol.

10 e increase of ocular perfusion pressure than timolol.

11 ryl triacylate) that contain a glaucoma drug timolol.

12 PF tafluprost and 17.9 to 18.5 mm Hg for PF timolol.

13 PF tafluprost was noninferior to that of PF timolol.

14 36 months with Tafluprost 0.0015% (27) or PF Timolol 0.1% (24) and 20 healthy age and sex-matched vol

15 uprost 0.0015% versus preservative free (PF) Timolol 0.1% eyedrops in ocular hypertensive (OH) and in

16 cept for an increased tear instability in PF Timolol 0.1% group.

17 Compared to PF Timolol 0.1%, Tafluprost 0.0015% showed similar safety w

18 separate containers of travoprost 0.004% and timolol 0.5% (TRAV+TIM; unfixed) using electronic dosing

19 ent with fixed-combination travoprost 0.004%/timolol 0.5% (TTFC) compared with separate containers of

20 1) to a 3-month regimen of LBN 0.024% qpm or timolol 0.5% 1 drop BID.

21 arsudil 0.02% twice a day (b.i.d.) (254); or timolol 0.5% b.i.d.

22 0.024% QD in the evening was noninferior to timolol 0.5% BID over 3 months of treatment, with signif

23 ated significantly greater IOP lowering than timolol 0.5% BID throughout the day over 3 months of tre

24 y assigned into either Group 1, who received timolol 0.5% eye drops, or Group 2, who received artific

25 fter participants self-administered drops of timolol 0.5% for 1 week, twice daily in each eye, both m

26 was statistically noninferior to twice-daily timolol 0.5% for lowering IOP in participants with POAG

27 ly higher in the LBN 0.024% group versus the timolol 0.5% group (mean IOP </=18 mmHg: 22.9% vs. 11.3%

28 ly lower in the LBN 0.024% group than in the timolol 0.5% group (P </= 0.002).

29 ety of omidenepag isopropyl (OMDI) 0.002% vs timolol 0.5% in patients with glaucoma or ocular hyperte

30 ts were randomized to topical treatment with timolol 0.5% or brimonidine 0.2%.

31 receive netarsudil 0.02% once daily (q.d.), timolol 0.5% twice a day (b.i.d.), and (ROCKET-2 only) n

32 brimonidine 0.2% was protective compared to timolol 0.5%, lower mean ocular perfusion pressure incre

33 87 completed the study (LBN 0.024%, n = 264; timolol 0.5%, n = 123).

34 ment with either PF tafluprost 0.0015% or PF timolol 0.5%.

35 l tears twice daily or a placebo insert plus timolol (0.5% solution) twice daily for 6 months after a

36 preservative-free (PF) tafluprost (0.0015%)/timolol (0.5%) fixed-dose combination (FC).

37 acuity (FE implant, 1.0%; SE implant, 4.1%; timolol, 0.5%), and IOP increased (FE implant, 3.5%; SE

38 Hospital from 2014 to 2016 with only topical timolol, 0.5%, twice daily for a minimum of 21 days.

39 creased (FE implant, 3.5%; SE implant, 2.6%; timolol, 2.1%).

40 ow was 3.9 microliters/minute +/- 0.4; after timolol, 2.5 microliters/minute +/-0.1; after methazolam

41 s conjunctival hyperemia (sepetaprost, 9.9%; timolol, 2.5%).

42 (3.85; 5.24), tafluprost 4.37 (2.94; 5.83), timolol 3.70 (3.16; 4.24), brimonidine 3.59 (2.89; 4.29)

43 lateral, MS infusions of the beta-antagonist timolol (3.75 microg, 8.7 nmol) decreased EEG indices of

44 d and 618 completed (PF tafluprost = 306, PF timolol = 312).

45 ro data, warfarin (93%), indomethacin (98%), timolol (50%), and carbamazepine (70%) were assigned to

46 e, 5.14 weeks (95% CI, 4.57-6.00 weeks) with timolol, 6.36 weeks (95% CI, 5.57-8.00 weeks) with a sys

47 ltransferase expression, but pre-exposure to timolol, a beta-adrenergic receptor antagonist, delayed

48 ssure gradient [HVPG] of 6 mm Hg) to receive timolol, a nonselective beta-blocker (108 patients), or

49 ere both blocked by pretreatment with either timolol, a nonspecific beta adrenergic blocking agent, o

50 Timolol monotherapy and timolol add-on treatment to a prostaglandin analog does

51 ) at baseline and 1, 2, 5, and 8 hours after timolol administration.

52 This study evaluated the effect of timolol, an aqueous humor flow suppressant, on outflow f

53 mpleted by 26 of 33 (79%) patients receiving timolol and 31 of 36 (86%) receiving placebo.

54 lol and unoprostone concomitant therapy, and timolol and brimonidine concomitant therapy.

55 n provided greater efficacy than concomitant timolol and brimonidine.

56 is) was higher with bimatoprost implant than timolol and highest with the 15-mug dose strength.

57 In conclusion, oral timolol and infusion of propranolol were associated with

58 baseline asthma history, in addition to oral timolol and infusion of propranolol, oral labetalol, oxp

59 here were no significant differences between timolol and placebo for complete or nearly complete IH r

60 The beta-adrenergic antagonists timolol and propranolol did not significantly inhibit st

61 qual in efficacy to latanoprost monotherapy, timolol and unoprostone concomitant therapy, and timolol

62 Topical timolol application for localized, superficial tumors ma

63 Timolol application is effective for the treatment of my

64 reatments of latanoprostene bunod at 8 PM or timolol at 8 AM and 8 PM.

65 but significantly greater (P </= .025) than timolol at all but the first time point in this study (w

66 private facility (P = 0.046) and the use of timolol at the end of the procedure (P = 0.007) were ass

67 A gel with 5% particle loading can deliver timolol at therapeutic doses for about a month at room t

68 IOP-lowering medication, was noninferior to timolol BID and was associated with tolerable ocular AEs

69 il QD met the criteria for noninferiority to timolol BID.

70 olerability of fixed-combination bimatoprost/timolol (bim/tim) and dorz/brim/tim in Mexican patients

71 mine or the beta adrenergic receptor blocker timolol, blocked this increase, indicating that afferent

72 duction with LBN was not only noninferior to timolol but significantly greater (P </= .025) than timo

73 Dorzolamide and timolol caused a sustained reduction of intraocular pres

74 Systemic administration of brimonidine or timolol caused little decrease in IOP.

75 temic corticosteroid and topical dorzolamide/timolol combination therapy.

76 The efficacy of timolol delivered via extended wear contact lenses was t

77 6 months after treatment and 6 months after timolol discontinuation, respectively (P < .001).

78 , but triple-therapy dorzolamide/brimonidine/timolol (dorz/brim/tim) is only available in Latin and S

79 ntation, 47 cases (group 1) received topical timolol-dorzolamide fixed-combination drops twice daily

80 There were no adverse effects from the timolol during follow-up.

81 -5.3 to -5.7 mm Hg, respectively); however, timolol efficacy varied (-5.4 to -6.1 vs -6.4 to -7.0 mm

82 ts receiving sepetaprost and 21.3% receiving timolol experienced AEs.

83 e events were consistent with bimatoprost or timolol exposure; no unexpected ocular AEs were observed

84 laser trabeculoplasty (SLT) was superior to timolol eye drops for controlling intraocular pressure (

85 SLT was superior to timolol eye drops for managing patients with open-angle

86 ocular insert was compared with twice-daily timolol eye drops in patients with open-angle glaucoma (

87 were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 0.5% timolol eye drops to administer twice daily or to receiv

88 atment used to control glaucoma is long-term timolol eye drops.

89 Maximal therapy was ceased and PF tafluprost/timolol FC was initiated, after which the signs and symp

90 Following a switch to the PF tafluprost/timolol FC, OSD symptoms were improved and IOP was 14 mm

91 PF FC formations, such as the PF tafluprost/timolol FC, reduces exposure to potentially toxic agents

92 The latanoprost-timolol fixed combination is available in many countries

93 The latanoprost-timolol fixed combination provided greater efficacy than

94 omparison with newer agents, the dorzolamide-timolol fixed combination was equal in efficacy to latan

95 dern combination product was the dorzolamide-timolol fixed combination.

96 strated better efficacy than the dorzolamide-timolol fixed combination.

97 mined whether beginning early treatment with timolol for IH is better than in other proliferative sta

98 pic dermatitis and psoriasis, use of topical timolol for infantile hemangiomas and bone marrow transp

99 ocused on increasing the release duration of timolol from ACUVUE TruEye contact lenses by incorporati

100 changes in the intraocular pressure (IOP) of timolol from the ACUVUE TruEye contact lenses can be sig

101 as successful in 55 (31%) of 176 eyes in the timolol group (16 [29%] of 55 eyes required repeat admin

102 nts (191 eyes) were randomly assigned to the timolol group and 101 (50%; 191 eyes) to the SLT group.

103 s) occurred in ten (10%) participants in the timolol group and in eight (8%) participants in the SLT

104 int did not differ significantly between the timolol group and the placebo group (39 percent and 40 p

105 PF Timolol group had significantly higher OSDI score, basal

106 roup compared with -4.2 to -6.4 mmHg for the timolol group over 6 months.

107 vents were more common among patients in the timolol group than among those in the placebo group (18

108 ifference between the implant groups and the timolol group was < 1 mmHg at all 6 time points.

109 ement in color was observed at week 4 in the timolol group, and timolol was well tolerated with no sy

110 sual field loss than those randomized to the timolol group, even though there was no significant diff

111 ly and clinically noninferior to that in the timolol group, with a favorable safety profile.

112 significant amount (0.7%, P = 0.030) in the timolol group.

113 te were recorded at all study visits for the timolol group.

114 lant group, and from 6.5 to 7.7 mmHg for the timolol group.

115 ween either of the netarsudil groups and the timolol group.

116 prost group and 23.5 to 26.0 mm Hg in the PF timolol group.

117 patients in the FE implant, SE implant, and timolol groups, respectively.

118 2 in the 10-mug implant, 15-mug implant, and timolol groups, respectively.

119 ort stimulated by isoproterenol in the order timolol > propranolol > betaxolol.

120 Systemic application of brimonidine or timolol had little effect on IOP.

121 Patients on pilocarpine and timolol had more corneal staining and lower TBUT [(p = 0

122 Timolol had no effect.

123 stoperatively, diclofenac, flurbiprofen, and timolol have all been proven to be effective in reducing

124 y prevented by the beta-receptor antagonist (timolol), identifying a dominant role of sympatho-stimul

125 more evidence regarding the role of topical timolol in IH treatment, which may help harmonize treatm

126 s of bimatoprost implant were noninferior to timolol in IOP lowering after each administration.

127 dpoint, the noninferiority of sepetaprost to timolol in mean IOP reductions, was met.

128 s, netarsudil demonstrated noninferiority to timolol in patients with baseline IOP <27 mm Hg and <30

129 IOP-lowering efficacy and safety of OMDI vs timolol in patients with glaucoma or OHT.

130 The particle loaded gels can release timolol in phosphate buffered saline (PBS) for about a m

131 e in both studies was OMDI noninferiority to timolol in reducing IOP (3 months).

132 nt of infantile hemangioma (IH) with topical timolol in the first 2 months of life (early proliferati

133 pressure (P < .001), and was noninferior to timolol in the per-protocol population with maximum base

134 Treatment with the beta-AR antagonist (timolol) increased speed 33% and increased P-ERK 2.4-fol

135 cay duration to baseline was increased after timolol instillation in the subjects with myopia only.

136 with sympathetic access was increased after timolol instillation.

137 in subjects with emmetropia before and after timolol instillation.

138 in the evening and vehicle in the morning or timolol instilled twice a day (BID) for 3 months.

139 cal trial, results demonstrated that topical timolol is well tolerated for the treatment of early pro

140 Pharmacologic effects of timolol, latanoprost, and Y-39983 were studied in hypert

141 included: brimonidine tartrate, dorzolamide-timolol, latanoprost, prednisolone acetate, and moxiflox

142 oprost and the fixed combination latanoprost-timolol (LTFC) on 24-hour systolic (SBP) and diastolic (

143 objective of the present work was to implant timolol maleate (TM) loaded ethyl cellulose nanoparticle

144 n at weeks 16 and 32, or twice-daily topical timolol maleate 0.5% (n = 198).

145 oth eyes of subjects received 1 microdrop of timolol maleate 0.5%.

146 bination products, consisting of dorzolamide/timolol maleate and pilocarpine/timolol maleate.

147 s (1 hour, 0.25-fold; 4 hours, 0.45-fold) of timolol maleate drug concentrations in intraocular tissu

148 ersal of the effect of Y-27632 on diminished timolol maleate intraocular penetration in NZW rabbits.

149 of sepetaprost ophthalmic solution 0.002% to timolol maleate ophthalmic solution 0.5% in participants

150 the intraocular penetration of administered timolol maleate presumably due to increased systemic eli

151 randomly assigned to treatment with topical timolol maleate solution, 0.5%, or placebo twice daily f

152 All subjects received timolol maleate to block the sympathetic nervous system

153 sympathetic inhibitory pharmacologic agent, timolol maleate, on the magnitude of nearwork-induced tr

154 Ex vivo porcine corneal penetration of timolol maleate, sotalol hydrochloride, or brinzolamide

155 dorzolamide/timolol maleate and pilocarpine/timolol maleate.

156 nhibition on the intraocular distribution of timolol maleate.

157 These data suggest that topical dorzolamide-timolol may reduce central subfield thickness and subret

158 (1)- (betaxolol) and mixed beta(1)/beta(2)- (timolol, metipranolol) adrenergic receptor antagonists w

159 Timolol microdrops appear to be as effective in ocular h

160 Timolol monotherapy and timolol add-on treatment to a pr

161 e-daily sepetaprost (n = 162) or twice-daily timolol (n = 161) in 1 eye for 3 months.

162 A total of 387 subjects (LBN, n = 259; timolol, n = 128) completed the study.

163 arsudil ophthalmic solution 0.02% QD (PM) or timolol ophthalmic solution 0.5% BID.

164 = 200] or SE implant [n = 197] model) or to timolol ophthalmic solution 0.5% twice daily (n = 193).

165 n the unfixed combination of latanoprost and timolol or eligible for dual therapy being not being ful

166 on changes in ocular biometrics and AHD with timolol or latanoprost treatment.

167 Drugs that decrease inflow (acetazolamide, timolol) or increase outflow facility (pilocarpine, lata

168 of 3 treatment options (propranolol, topical timolol, or observation) for each vignette.

169 hat PF tafluprost would be noninferior to PF timolol over 12 weeks with regard to change from baselin

170 208, ROCKET-1) to 11% (27/251, ROCKET-2) for timolol (P < .0001 for netarsudil vs timolol).

171 s of endophthalmitis occurring was higher if timolol (P = 0.0002) was used at the end of the procedur

172 Similar percentages of PF tafluprost and PF timolol patients reported ocular pain/stinging/irritatio

173 The percentages of PF tafluprost and PF timolol patients reporting conjunctival hyperemia were 4

174 Eyes randomized to timolol progressed faster than those randomized to brimo

175 The hypotensive adrenergic antagonist timolol, propranolol, and betaxolol also inhibited Na+,

176 Timolol reduces outflow facility in healthy human eyes,

177 We combine laboratory-based timolol release studies and in vivo pharmacodynamics stu

178 for netarsudil q.d., netarsudil b.i.d., and timolol, respectively, over 12 months.

179 Incubation with the beta-AR antagonist timolol reversed the catecholamine-induced effects, indi

180 Overall NMA revealed that only oral timolol [risk ratio (RR) = 3.35 (95% confidence interval

181 oc outcome measure). was also noninferior to timolol (ROCKET-2).

182 Brimonidine, but not timolol, showed significant protection of retinal gangli

183 Topical timolol shows promise for the treatment of certain types

184 ediated microdrops and conventional drops of timolol significantly decreased IOP compared with baseli

185 ex vivo porcine corneal drug penetration of timolol, sotalol, or brinzolamide.

186 the BLA, the beta-adrenoreceptor antagonist, timolol, the D1/D5 dopamine receptor agonist, SKF38393,

187 t the primary end point of noninferiority to timolol through week 12.

188 onstrated an increase in decay duration with timolol, thus suggesting impaired sympathetic inhibition

189 m is hydrolysis of the ester bond that links timolol to the PGT matrix, but other mechanisms such as

190 In vehicle- or timolol-treated rats, ganglion cell loss continued to 33

191 Of LBN- and timolol-treated subjects, respectively, 31.0% and 18.5%

192 e (P = .002) and 2.3 +/- 3.0 mm Hg less than timolol treatment (P = .004).

193 rnal ocular perfusion pressure compared with timolol treatment (P = .010).

194 rface pyogenic granulomas respond to topical timolol treatment, which has a lower adverse-effect prof

195 healing by 79%, whereas beta-AR antagonist (timolol) treatment increased the rate of healing by 16%

196 es received a regimen of topical dorzolamide-timolol twice daily and continued to receive the same in

197 Conversely, timolol (two drops of 0.5% solution) had no effect on ki

198 ived one of the following: two drops of 0.5% timolol, two drops of 3.5% pilocarpine, or 25 mg/kg intr

199 .4 +/- 2.4 mm Hg (P < 0.001) after 1 week of timolol use.

200 Brimonidine or timolol was administered, either at the time of or 10 da

201 Superiority of sepetaprost to timolol was observed at 4:00 pm in week 2, week 6, and m

202 endophthalmitis was more likely to occur if timolol was used at the end of the procedure or if surge

203 observed at week 4 in the timolol group, and timolol was well tolerated with no systemic adverse effe

204 he difference in mean IOP (sepetaprost minus timolol) was <=1.5 mmHg at all 9 specified timepoints an

205 hydro-2H-benzimidazol-2-o ne], pindolol, and timolol, which displayed agonistic properties toward the

206 Surprisingly, however timolol, which reduces flow, had no effect on Na+ entry.

207 ory potency is (s)(-)-propranolol>betaxolol>>timolol, with average IC(50) of 78.05, 235.7 and 2167.05

208 .9 mm Hg for netarsudil and 16.7 to 17.6 for timolol, with mean reductions from baseline of 3.9 to 4.