Question:
ridiculously expensive. In particular, I have been looking at Xalatan or
Travatan. Where can I find a comparison of the relative benefits of these
new drugs compared to old generics. For example, I am already using generic
brimonidine thre times a day. Many years ago, timolol, then available only
as Timoptic worked very well indeed.
And there is always pot. I never used any before but I expect I would have
not trouble growing it. I would prefer not to smoke it. How does it get used
for glaucoma? Would it make sense to try making eye drops from it?
Answer:
>The newest eyedrops used for reducing intra-ocular pressure (IOP) seem
>ridiculously expensive.
They are (relatively) expensive.
>In particular, I have been looking at Xalatan or Travatan. Where can I
>find a comparison of the relative benefits of these new drugs compared
>to old generics.
Your eye doctor should be the best source.
>For example, I am already using generic brimonidine thre times a day.
>Many years ago, timolol, then available only as Timoptic worked very
>well indeed.
If your IOP is consistently at its "target" level, your quality of
life is acceptable and the side effects are acceptable, then there is
probably little reason to change from what you are taking.
Personally, I almost never use anything but a prostaglanding analog --
one of those "ridiculously expensive" drops -- as a "first line drug"
on my glaucoma patients. In layman's terms, "they rule" and are a
Godsend for my patients -- much like timolol was when all we basically
had was pilo and epinephrine.
>And there is always pot.
Forget pot. Its use in the management of glaucoma is nil.
>ridiculously expensive.
They are (relatively) expensive.
>In particular, I have been looking at Xalatan or Travatan. Where can I
>find a comparison of the relative benefits of these new drugs compared
>to old generics.
Your eye doctor should be the best source.
>For example, I am already using generic brimonidine thre times a day.
>Many years ago, timolol, then available only as Timoptic worked very
>well indeed.
If your IOP is consistently at its "target" level, your quality of
life is acceptable and the side effects are acceptable, then there is
probably little reason to change from what you are taking.
Personally, I almost never use anything but a prostaglanding analog --
one of those "ridiculously expensive" drops -- as a "first line drug"
on my glaucoma patients. In layman's terms, "they rule" and are a
Godsend for my patients -- much like timolol was when all we basically
had was pilo and epinephrine.
>And there is always pot.
Forget pot. Its use in the management of glaucoma is nil.
