Comparative study of the stability of bimatoprost 0.03% and latanoprost 0.005%: A patient-use study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The stability of ophthalmic preparations in multidose containers is influenced by the preservative as well as the stability of the active ingredient. Unstable drugs may require refrigeration to preserve their active ingredient level and they are more likely to degrade over time, therefore becoming more susceptible to degradation based on patient mishandling. The purpose of this study was to determine the degree of molecular degradation that occurs in bimatoprost and latanoprost in a patient-use setting.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This was an open-label, laboratory evaluation of the relative stability of bimatoprost and latanoprost. Patients presently using bimatoprost (n = 31) or latanoprost (n = 34) were identified at 2 clinical sites in Brazil. Patients were instructed to use and store their drops as usual and return all used medication bottles between day 28 and day 34 after opening.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Bimatoprost demonstrated no degradation, but latanoprost degraded at various levels. The mean age of bimatoprost was 43.0 ± 3.4 days and the mean age of latanoprost was 43.9 ± 2.8 days (P = .072). The mean percentage of labeled concentration was 103.7% in the bimatoprost bottles and 88.1% in the latanoprost bottles (P < 001).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This study showed that bimatoprost maintained ≥100% concentration throughout the study period while latanoprost did not.</p

Evaluation of risk of falls and orthostatic hypotension in older, long-term topical beta-blocker users

Background: Falls are a serious problem in the elderly, and have recently been described as cardiovascular-mediated side effects of beta-blocker eye drops. Therefore, we investigated the possible association between the long-term use of beta-blockers, prostaglandins and their combinations in eye drops, and falls, dizziness and orthostatic hypotension in older patients. Methods: All participants were long-term users of eye drops containing beta-blockers, prostaglandins or their combinations. They underwent a structured falls interview and blood pressure measurement for testing of orthostatic hypotension. The odds ratio for presence of orthostatic hypotension or a positive falls history according to use of beta-blocker eye drops was calculated with a binary logistic regression analysis. The main outcome measures were a positive falls history and the presence of orthostatic hypotension. Results: In total, 148 of 286 subjects participated. After adjustment for age, gender, and use of fall-risk-increasing drugs other than beta-blocker eye drops, we found no significant difference in fall risk [odds ratio (OR): 0.60; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.268-1.327] between patients using ophthalmic beta-blockers or a combination of ophthalmic beta-blockers and prostaglandins, and patients using ophthalmic prostaglandins only. Although prevalence of orthostatic hypotension was higher in the beta-blocker group (OR: 1.67; 95% CI: 0.731-3.793) compared to the prostaglandin group, this was a non-significant difference. Conclusions: In our study, we did not find a significant association between long-term use of beta-blockers eye drops and falls, dizziness or orthostatic hypotension in older ophthalmic outpatients, compared to long-term use of prostaglandin eye drops

Effectiveness of manual therapies: the UK evidence report

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The purpose of this report is to provide a succinct but comprehensive summary of the scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of manual treatment for the management of a variety of musculoskeletal and non-musculoskeletal conditions.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The conclusions are based on the results of systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials (RCTs), widely accepted and primarily UK and United States evidence-based clinical guidelines, plus the results of all RCTs not yet included in the first three categories. The strength/quality of the evidence regarding effectiveness was based on an adapted version of the grading system developed by the US Preventive Services Task Force and a study risk of bias assessment tool for the recent RCTs.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>By September 2009, 26 categories of conditions were located containing RCT evidence for the use of manual therapy: 13 musculoskeletal conditions, four types of chronic headache and nine non-musculoskeletal conditions. We identified 49 recent relevant systematic reviews and 16 evidence-based clinical guidelines plus an additional 46 RCTs not yet included in systematic reviews and guidelines.</p> <p>Additionally, brief references are made to other effective non-pharmacological, non-invasive physical treatments.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Spinal manipulation/mobilization is effective in adults for: acute, subacute, and chronic low back pain; migraine and cervicogenic headache; cervicogenic dizziness; manipulation/mobilization is effective for several extremity joint conditions; and thoracic manipulation/mobilization is effective for acute/subacute neck pain. The evidence is inconclusive for cervical manipulation/mobilization alone for neck pain of any duration, and for manipulation/mobilization for mid back pain, sciatica, tension-type headache, coccydynia, temporomandibular joint disorders, fibromyalgia, premenstrual syndrome, and pneumonia in older adults. Spinal manipulation is not effective for asthma and dysmenorrhea when compared to sham manipulation, or for Stage 1 hypertension when added to an antihypertensive diet. In children, the evidence is inconclusive regarding the effectiveness for otitis media and enuresis, and it is not effective for infantile colic and asthma when compared to sham manipulation.</p> <p>Massage is effective in adults for chronic low back pain and chronic neck pain. The evidence is inconclusive for knee osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, myofascial pain syndrome, migraine headache, and premenstrual syndrome. In children, the evidence is inconclusive for asthma and infantile colic.</p