Trial reportThe British journal of ophthalmology2026
Low-concentration bimatoprost 0.01% and timolol 0.1% eye gel versus bimatoprost 0.03% and timolol 0.5% eye drops in open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension: a phase III randomised study.
Trial report in The British journal of ophthalmology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsTo compare the efficacy and safety of a new preservative-free bimatoprost 0.01%/timolol 0.1% fixed combination (BTFC) eye gel with those of bimatoprost 0.03%/timolol 0.5% fixed combination ophthalmic solution (BTFC eye drops) in patients with open-angle glaucoma (OAG) or ocular hypertension (OHT).
methodsIn this phase III, international, multi-centre, randomised, parallel group, investigator-masked study, patients receiving a first-line monotherapy, having insufficiently controlled intraocular pressure (IOP) and requiring dual therapy were randomised to receive either BTFC eye gel or BTFC eye drops once daily for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change in IOP from baseline to week 12 at 08:00 in the assessed eye. Further efficacy and safety endpoints were assessed as secondary outcomes.
resultsThe mean±SD change in IOP from baseline to week 12 at 08:00 was -10.96±3.43 mmHg for the BTFC eye gel group and -11.14±3.56 mmHg for the BTFC eye drop group. The least-squares mean difference (BTFC eye gel minus BTFC eye drops) was -0.04±0.24 mmHg (95% CI -0.51 to 0.43 mmHg), with the upper bound of the 95% CI lower than the predefined margin of +1.5 mmHg at week 12 at 08:00. Similar IOP-lowering efficacy was demonstrated at all other timepoints. The safety profile was comparable between the treatment groups. No patients in the BTFC eye gel group discontinued the study due to a treatment-related adverse event compared with 8 (2.9%) patients in the BTFC eye drop group.
conclusionLow-concentration BTFC eye gel can be considered as a safe and effective treatment in the therapeutic management of glaucoma and OHT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.