Abstract
1. Intraocular pressure and cardiovascular responses to metipranolol 0.1% and 0.3% and timolol 0.25% eyedrops were measured in a balanced single dose placebo-controlled crossover study in eight healthy volunteers aged 34-58 years. 2. Timolol 0.25% and metipranolol 0.3% reduced intraocular pressure throughout the 6 h period of observation to a similar extent. Metipranolol 0.1% was marginally less effective, significantly reducing pressure up to 4 h only. 3. No drug treatment significantly altered resting heart rate or blood pressure. Timolol 0.25% significantly reduced exercise tachycardia (P less than 0.05), an effect which was not shown by metipranolol 0.1 or 0.3%. Exertional pain in the legs occurred more frequently after timolol 0.25% and metipranolol 0.3% than after metipranolol 0.1% or placebo eyedrops. 4. Octan-1-ol/pH 7.4 buffer distribution coefficients at 37 degrees C were found to be: metipranolol 5.19, timolol 0.84, indicating that metipranolol has an approximately 6-fold greater lipid solubility. 5. It is concluded that, by comparison with timolol, metipranolol in eyedrop concentrations up to 0.3%, despite its greater lipid solubility, reaches concentrations in the systemic circulation which are less likely to affect the heart.
Full text
PDF
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Alvan G., Calissendorff B., Seideman P., Widmark K., Widmark G. Absorption of ocular timolol. Clin Pharmacokinet. 1980 Jan-Feb;5(1):95–100. doi: 10.2165/00003088-198005010-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Brazier D. J., Smith S. E. Ocular and cardiovascular response to topical carteolol 2% and timolol 0.5% in healthy volunteers. Br J Ophthalmol. 1988 Feb;72(2):101–103. doi: 10.1136/bjo.72.2.101. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mahgoub A., Idle J. R., Dring L. G., Lancaster R., Smith R. L. Polymorphic hydroxylation of Debrisoquine in man. Lancet. 1977 Sep 17;2(8038):584–586. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(77)91430-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mills K. B., Wright G. A blind randomised cross-over trial comparing metipranolol 0.3% with timolol 0.25% in open-angle glaucoma: a pilot study. Br J Ophthalmol. 1986 Jan;70(1):39–42. doi: 10.1136/bjo.70.1.39. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Nelson W. L., Fraunfelder F. T., Sills J. M., Arrowsmith J. B., Kuritsky J. N. Adverse respiratory and cardiovascular events attributed to timolol ophthalmic solution, 1978-1985. Am J Ophthalmol. 1986 Nov 15;102(5):606–611. doi: 10.1016/0002-9394(86)90532-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Smith S. E., Smith S. A., Reynolds F., Whitmarsh V. B. Ocular and cardiovascular effects of local and systemic pindolol. Br J Ophthalmol. 1979 Jan;63(1):63–66. doi: 10.1136/bjo.63.1.63. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Van Buskirk E. M. Adverse reactions from timolol administration. Ophthalmology. 1980 May;87(5):447–450. doi: 10.1016/s0161-6420(80)35215-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Van Buskirk E. M., Fraunfelder F. T. Timolol and glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 1981 Apr;99(4):696–696. doi: 10.1001/archopht.1981.03930010696022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Woods P. B., Robinson M. L. An investigation of the comparative liposolubilities of beta-adrenoceptor blocking agents. J Pharm Pharmacol. 1981 Mar;33(3):172–173. doi: 10.1111/j.2042-7158.1981.tb13743.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Zimmerman T. J., Kaufman H. E. Timolol, dose response and duration of action. Arch Ophthalmol. 1977 Apr;95(4):605–607. doi: 10.1001/archopht.1977.04450040071009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]