E majority of patients had been male (67.0 ). Importantly, there was no statistically considerable distinction in baseline IOP values among the four therapy groups, which incorporated a mean baseline IOP selection of 25.79?.84 mmHg to 26.86?.50 mmHg. Furthermore, there were no statistically considerable variations inside the variety of patients using a history of OAG between the therapy groups. Slightly extra individuals in the latanoprost plus timolol group (33 proper eye, 32 left eye) had OHT compared with the fixed-dose combination group (25 suitable eye, 27 left eye), latanoprost group (20 ideal eye, 19 left eye), and timolol group (22 for every single eye). This variation in OHT amongst the groups was not regarded as getting statistically important.IOP assessments between therapy groupsSignificant reductions in IOP from baseline have been observed in all remedy groups at all time points over the 6-week remedy period (Figure two). The IOP reduction together with the fixed-dose combination of latanoprost/timolol was similar to that with concomitant latanoprost plus timolol. Mean IOP inside the fixed-dose mixture group and concomitant group was inside 1.five mmHg at all 12 time points. In addition, the reduce bound 95 confidence interval at 9 am and 11 am at week 1 crossed the margin of 1.5 mmHg in favor in the fixed-dose combination of latanoprost/timolol versus concomitant latanoprost plus timolol (1.65 mmHg and 1.53 mmHg, respectively). The reduction in IOP from baseline using the fixed-dose combination of latanoprost and timolol was higher than with either latanoprost or timolol alone, regardless of time of day (Table 2). A statistically important distinction was demonstrated in favor of the fixed-dose combination of latanoprost/timolol versus latanoprost monotherapy at four time points: 11 am and five pm at week two (P=0.0164 and P=0.0099, respectively), 9 am at week 4 (P=0.0148), and 11 am at week 6 (P=0.0439). Further, a statistically substantial difference in favor from the fixed-dose combination of latanoprost/timolol versus timololClinical Ophthalmology 2014:submit your manuscript | dovepressDovepressBhagat et alDovepressTable 1 Patient demographic and baseline qualities (ITT population)*Category Therapy group Latanoprost/timolol fixed-dose mixture (n=55) sex, n ( ) Male Female age (years) Imply sD variety iris color, n ( ) Brown Hazel Mean baseline IOP (mmHg)a Imply sD variety P-valueb Distinction 95 CI 39 (70.9) 16 (29.1) 56.three 14.30 24?three 55 (one hundred.0) 0 9 am 26.38 2.80 20.33?five.00 11 am 26.48 3.13 20.00?7.Buy(2R,4R)-2-methyltetrahydro-2H-pyran-4-ol 66 5 pm 25.93 3.19 19.33?6.00 Latanoprost + timolol (n=56)38 (67.9) 18 (32.1) 53.five 12.59 22?2 56 (one hundred.0) 0 9 am 26.81 2.42 19.67?three.33 0.3942 -0.42 -1.41 to 0.56 11 am 26.22 2.Apixaban Data Sheet 67 19.PMID:24059181 33?2.33 0.6458 0.25 -0.84 to 1.35 five pm 26.16 2.81 20.00?4.00 0.6870 -0.23 -1.36 to 0.Notes: *Data shown are for the efficacy analysis (ITT) population. aMean IOP at baseline is for the study eye only. bP-value was calculated for each and every group compared with latanoprost/timolol fixed-dose mixture in the corresponding time point, working with unpaired Student’s t-test. Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; IOP, intraocular stress; ITT, intent to treat; SD, regular deviation.monotherapy was indicated at all time points (P=0.0010 to P0.0001). These statistical information, which were confirmed by analysis of covariance, recommend an enhanced IOP-lowering efficacy for the fixed-dose combination of latanoprost/timolol versus latanoprost or timolol monotherapy.safetyOcular treatment-emergent adverse.