Authors
K D Wang, P Zhao, L L Wu, T H Zhang, H Z Zhou, Y L Wang, J B Wang, M Ke, X L Xing, J Yang, H Dai, D B Wang, X C Duan, Q Zhao, Y H Wang, M K Lin, L S Tang, M W Zhao, A W Fang, K Yao, Y J Zheng, J L Hao, L Xu, J Zhou, C Liu, X H Sun
Published in
[Zhonghua yan ke za zhi] Chinese journal of ophthalmology. Volume 62. Issue 9. Pages 691-699. Sep 11, 2026.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of a preservative-free tafluprost/timolol maleate fixed-dose combination compared with preservative-free tafluprost monotherapy in Chinese patients with open-angle glaucoma (OAG) or ocular hypertension (OHT). Methods: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-controlled clinical trial conducted across 25 centers, including the Eye & ENT Hospital of Fudan University, from January 2019 to November 2022. Patients diagnosed with OAG or OHT who required enhanced intraocular pressure (IOP) reduction after a 4-week washout period were enrolled. Participants were randomized 1∶1 to receive either tafluprost/timolol or tafluprost once daily for 3 months. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in mean diurnal IOP (the average of measurements at 8:00, 10:00, and 16:00) at Month 3. Secondary endpoints included IOP changes at individual time points and the proportion of responders achieving predefined IOP reduction thresholds. Safety was assessed via the incidence of adverse events (AEs). Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using the Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) method was employed for the primary endpoint; superiority was established if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) was<0 mmHg (1 mmHg=0.133 kPa). Continuous variables in secondary endpoints were compared using ANCOVA, and responder rates were analyzed using Fisher's exact test. Results: A total of 219 patients were enrolled (tafluprost/timolol group: n=110; tafluprost group: n=109). The primary efficacy analysis set included 215 patients (tafluprost/timolol: n=107; tafluprost: n=108). Baseline characteristics were well-balanced between the two groups. The majority of patients were male [127 (59.1%)] with a mean age of (44.80±15.71) years at screening. At Month 3, the mean diurnal IOP reduction from baseline was (6.56±3.44) mmHg in the tafluprost/timolol group and (5.36±2.94) mmHg in the tafluprost group. After adjusting for baseline IOP, the between-group difference was -1.312 mmHg (95%CI: -2.010 to -0.696); as the upper limit was<0 mmHg, tafluprost/timolol demonstrated superior IOP-lowering efficacy to tafluprost. Responder rates for IOP reductions of≥15%,≥25%, and≥30% were significantly higher in the tafluprost/timolol group (P=0.016, 0.028, and 0.032, respectively). The incidence of ocular AEs was 20.0% (22/110) in the tafluprost/timolol group and 26.6% (29/109) in the tafluprost group. The most common AE was conjunctival hyperemia, occurring in 2.7% (3/110) and 8.3% (9/109) of the groups, respectively. Conclusion: Compared with preservative-free tafluprost monotherapy, the tafluprost/timolol combination provides significantly greater IOP reduction in patients with OAG and OHT, while maintaining a favorable safety profile.
PMID:
42706141
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 08 Sep 2026.
Read full publication at:
Please sign in
to see all details.
Advertisement
Stats
- Recommendations n/a n/a positive of 0 vote(s)
- Views 3
- Comments 0