FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1978222743> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1978222743 endingPage "1862" @default.
• W1978222743 startingPage "1862" @default.
• W1978222743 abstract "We read Dr. Eisenberg's letter with the utmost care. As far as the items needing clarifications, we can offer the following considerations: 1.The aim of our study was to verify if patients who did not respond to latanoprost were responders to bimatoprost. The observed results offer a clear answer to this question. Discussing the biochemistry of bimatoprost is far beyond the aims of our study. However, while discussing our results, we carefully pointed out that both (1) poor esterification of the prodrug latanoprost to the active acid form and (2) differences in the involved receptors might offer an explanation for the observed phenomenon. Moreover, the characterization of bimatoprost as a prostamide was suggested by Woodward et al in 2001.1Woodward D.F. Krauss A.H. Chen J. et al.The pharmacology of bimatoprost (Lumigan).Surv Ophthalmol. 2001; 45: S337-345Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (194) Google Scholar Another article produced by the same authors and offering more details has recently been published.2Woodward D.F. Krauss A.H. Chen J. et al.Pharmacological characterization of a novel antiglaucoma agent, bimatoprost (AGN 192094).J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2003; 305: 772-785Crossref PubMed Scopus (119) Google Scholar2.We were quoting the results of a multicenter, prospective, randomized clinical trial that appeared in a peer-reviewed journal.3Gandolfi S. Simmons S.T. Sturm R. et al.Three-month comparison of bimatoprost and latanoprost in patients with glaucoma and ocular hypertension.Adv Ther. 2001; 18: 110-121Crossref PubMed Scopus (182) Google Scholar This procedure is, in our opinion, appropriate and correct and follows the rules of evidence-based medicine. We are well aware of the post hoc criticisms raised by Drs. Eisenberg, Toris, and Camras in a review published, under the sponsorship of Pharmacia, in a supplement of Survey of Ophthalmology.4Eisenberg D.L. Toris C.B. Camras C.B. Bimatoprost and travoprost a review of recent studies of two new glaucoma drugs.Surv Ophthalmol. 2002; 47: S105-115Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (96) Google Scholar The issue of the face-to-face comparison between latanoprost and bimatoprost is still a matter of debate5Noecker R.S. Dirks M.S. Choplin N.T. et al.A six-month randomized clinical trial comparing the intraocular pressure-lowering efficacy of bimatoprost and latanoprost in patients with ocular hypertension or glaucoma.Am J Ophthalmol. 2003; 135: 55-63Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (280) Google Scholar, 6Parrish R.K. Palmberg P. Sheu W.P. XLP Study GroupA comparison of latanoprost, bimatoprost and travoprost in patients with elevated intraocular pressure a 12-week, randomized, masked-evaluator multicenter study.Am J Ophthalmol. 2003; 135: 688-703Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (405) Google Scholar and is not pertinent to our nonresponders study.3.Dr. Eisenberg states that “it is difficult to generalize the findings of this study to clinical practice” and “clinically there are patients who respond to latanoprost but do not respond to bimatoprost,” and asks “What would a study of this group prove?” To the best of our knowledge, our study is the first one to give proper scientific support to the general anecdotal experience quoted by Dr. Eisenberg (i.e., “everyone who practices medicine encounters patients who respond in unusual ways”). In our opinion, this is the most correct way to move from evidence-b(i)ased medicine to evidence-based medicine. Finally, the big family of the so-called hypotensive lipids (i.e., travoprost, latanoprost, bimatoprost, unoprostone) may be rather unique in the heterogeneity of the response given by each individual patient to each individual drug: does it make sense, whenever a patient gives a suboptimal response to a member of this family, to shift to another member of the same family instead of shifting to another family of drugs? Our controlled clinical trial gives some scientific support to this hypothesis." @default.
• W1978222743 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1978222743 creator A5039985329 @default.
• W1978222743 creator A5084166303 @default.
• W1978222743 date "2003-09-01" @default.
• W1978222743 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W1978222743 title "Latanoprost versus bimatoprost: Author reply" @default.
• W1978222743 cites W179785385 @default.
• W1978222743 cites W1975190613 @default.
• W1978222743 cites W2003916074 @default.
• W1978222743 cites W2040322156 @default.
• W1978222743 cites W2060032838 @default.
• W1978222743 cites W2100006930 @default.
• W1978222743 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/s0161-6420(03)00850-9" @default.
• W1978222743 hasPublicationYear "2003" @default.
• W1978222743 type Work @default.
• W1978222743 sameAs 1978222743 @default.
• W1978222743 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W1978222743 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1978222743 hasAuthorship W1978222743A5039985329 @default.
• W1978222743 hasAuthorship W1978222743A5084166303 @default.
• W1978222743 hasBestOaLocation W19782227431 @default.
• W1978222743 hasConcept C118487528 @default.
• W1978222743 hasConcept C185592680 @default.
• W1978222743 hasConcept C2776740260 @default.
• W1978222743 hasConcept C2777336333 @default.
• W1978222743 hasConcept C2778527774 @default.
• W1978222743 hasConcept C2779473830 @default.
• W1978222743 hasConcept C55493867 @default.
• W1978222743 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W1978222743 hasConcept C83867959 @default.
• W1978222743 hasConceptScore W1978222743C118487528 @default.
• W1978222743 hasConceptScore W1978222743C185592680 @default.
• W1978222743 hasConceptScore W1978222743C2776740260 @default.
• W1978222743 hasConceptScore W1978222743C2777336333 @default.
• W1978222743 hasConceptScore W1978222743C2778527774 @default.
• W1978222743 hasConceptScore W1978222743C2779473830 @default.
• W1978222743 hasConceptScore W1978222743C55493867 @default.
• W1978222743 hasConceptScore W1978222743C71924100 @default.
• W1978222743 hasConceptScore W1978222743C83867959 @default.
• W1978222743 hasIssue "9" @default.
• W1978222743 hasLocation W19782227431 @default.
• W1978222743 hasOpenAccess W1978222743 @default.
• W1978222743 hasPrimaryLocation W19782227431 @default.
• W1978222743 hasRelatedWork W1467050044 @default.
• W1978222743 hasRelatedWork W1965009242 @default.
• W1978222743 hasRelatedWork W2027788223 @default.
• W1978222743 hasRelatedWork W2045012349 @default.
• W1978222743 hasRelatedWork W2048360586 @default.
• W1978222743 hasRelatedWork W2058087195 @default.
• W1978222743 hasRelatedWork W2069899266 @default.
• W1978222743 hasRelatedWork W2128476364 @default.
• W1978222743 hasRelatedWork W2162221629 @default.
• W1978222743 hasRelatedWork W2324477148 @default.
• W1978222743 hasVolume "110" @default.
• W1978222743 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1978222743 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1978222743 magId "1978222743" @default.
• W1978222743 workType "article" @default.