Drug Database
TR

travoprost + timolol (TTFC, Alcon / TTFC, Alcon)

✓ Approved

Novartis AG · ADRB1 · Small Molecule

What is travoprost + timolol?

travoprost + timolol is a small molecule developed by Novartis AG. It is approved for therapeutic indications via others.

Drug Profile

Brand NamesTTFC, Alcon, TTFC, Alcon
CompanyNovartis AG
Drug ClassSmall Molecule
Molecular TargetADRB1, ADRB2, PTGFR
RouteOthers
StatusApproved
Sources: ClinicalTrials.gov, Novartis AG

Mechanism of Action

Molecular Targets

travoprost + timolol acts on 3 molecular targets:

ADRB1adrenoceptor beta 1 (B1AR, RHR)
ADRB2adrenoceptor beta 2 (ADRBR, B2AR)
PTGFRprostaglandin F receptor (FP)
Want deeper analysis?Noah AI can explain complex mechanisms and compare to similar drugs.

Therapeutic Indications

travoprost + timolol is developed for 1 unique indication across 1 therapeutic area.

Therapeutic AreaConditionPhase
Eye disordersGlaucoma✓ Approved

Related Research Articles

PubMedCutaneous and ocular toxicology2026-10-20

Ex vivo evaluation of corneal permeation and irritation potential associated with proparacaine hydrochloride misuse.

Gonzalez-Jimenez Natalia C NC, Lozano María C MC, Baena Yolima Y

Proparacaine hydrochloride is a topical ocular anesthetic widely used in diagnostic procedures. Although generally safe when properly administered, repeated or unsupervised use has been associated with clinically relevant corneal injury. In contexts where access to topical anesthetics is insufficiently controlled, misuse may result in cumulative epithelial damage and vision-threatening complications. Despite clinical reports and experimental evidence of corneal toxicity, quantitative data linking exposure conditions to structural corneal damage under controlled ex vivo settings remain limited, particularly regarding dose-injury relationships at the tissue level. Porcine corneas were mounted in Franz diffusion cells to quantify permeation by UV-Vis spectrophotometry and evaluate corneal histopathological changes. Both pure proparacaine and the commercial 0.5% proparacaine hydrochloride ophthalmic solution (Alcaine®, Alcon) were assessed under therapeutic (2.25 mg/mL), abuse (4.5 mg/mL), and infinite-dose (53.152 mg/mL) conditions. Negative (phosphate-buffered saline) and positive (99.5% ethanol) controls were included for histopathological assessment. ANOVA was applied to permeation data, and histopathological scores were analyzed using non-parametric tests. Proparacaine showed low permeability (9.33 × 10-7 cm/s), with only a small fraction of the applied dose permeating across the cornea during the experimental period. Permeation increased in a concentration- and time-dependent manner. High-dose and infinite-dose exposure conditions resulted in marked epithelial damage, including spongiosis, chromatin condensation, and desquamation, with severity comparable to that induced by ethanol used as a positive control. Differences between formulations were primarily driven by concentration rather than formulation composition, and a correlation was observed between cumulative permeation and the extent of epithelial injury. Proparacaine demonstrates dose-dependent permeation and histopathological changes, emphasizing the risks associated with misuse. The ex vivo model provides relevant and ethically aligned evidence to support ocular hazard assessment through the characterizing of histopathological changes.

PMID 42900757
Read full article →
PubMedInternational ophthalmology2026-10-15

Comparative safety and complication profiles of two three-piece intraocular lenses in Yamane technique.

Karadağ Erdi E, Akçay Güzide G, Tanyıldız Burak B, Kıvrak Ulviye U et al.

To compare the mechanical behavior, intraoperative events, and postoperative outcomes of two three-piece intraocular lenses (IOLs) with different haptic materials-polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) and polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF)-implanted using the Yamane fixation technique. This retrospective comparative study included eyes undergoing Yamane scleral fixation with either a PMMA-haptic IOL (Alcon MA60AC) or a PVDF-haptic IOL (Eyecryl Plus TP613). Preoperative and postoperative month 6 best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), intraocular pressure (IOP), and cylindrical refraction, as well as intraoperative haptic-related complications including haptic tip breakage and optic-haptic junction separation, postoperative IOL dislocation, and other postoperative complications were recorded and analyzed. Seventy-four eyes (37 per group) were included. Baseline demographic and preoperative clinical characteristics were similar between groups. At 6 months, BCVA improved significantly in both groups without a significant intergroup difference, and postoperative IOP values and cylindrical refraction were comparable. Intraoperative complications were more frequent in the Alcon group (32.4%, 95% CI 19.6-48.5% vs. 5.4%, 95% CI 1.5-17.7%; p = 0.003), with haptic-related complications occurring exclusively in this group. Overall postoperative complication rates were similar; however, IOL dislocation occurred only in the Alcon group (16.2%, 95% CI 7.7-31.1% vs. 0%; p = 0.025). Other postoperative complications did not differ significantly. Both IOLs yielded comparable improvements in visual acuity; however, all haptic-related complications and IOL dislocations occurred exclusively in the Alcon MA60AC group. These findings suggest that IOL selection is an important consideration in Yamane fixation, and the Eyecryl Plus TP613 with its PVDF haptics and more favorable design profile may offer greater biomechanical reliability.

PMID 42878917
Read full article →
PubMedJournal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA2026-10-14

Nonselective beta-blockers and hepatic encephalopathy in liver cirrhosis:A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Kuo Tai-Hui TH, Chen Yu-Jen YJ, Lee Pei-Chang PC, Yang Tsung-Chieh TC et al.

Liver cirrhosis leads to portal hypertension and related complications, including ascites, esophageal varices, and hepatic encephalopathy (HE). Non-selective beta blockers (NSBBs) decrease portal pressure, but it is not yet clear whether they contribute to HE development. Therefore, we examined the association between NSBB therapy and HE in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving patients with cirrhosis. We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and the Cochrane Library (from inception to December 31, 2024) for RCTs comparing NSBBs with a placebo, endoscopic band ligation, or injection sclerotherapy for variceal bleeding prevention in relation to HE. The risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using a random-effects model. Subgroups were defined according to the comparator, NSBB type, and hepatic function status (weighted mean Child-Pugh score ≤6 vs. >6). The risk of bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2). There were 12 relevant studies, which included 775 NSBB-treated and 771 comparator patients (54 and 57 HE events). NSBB therapy was not associated with a statistically significant change in HE risk (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.73-1.47; p = 0.84; I² = 0%). Estimates were consistent across all subgroups of hepatic function statuses (compensation, RR 1.18, 0.44-3.14; decompensation, RR 1.02, 0.70-1.48; p = 0.79), comparators (placebo, RR 1.19, 0.79-1.80; endoscopic therapy, RR 0.72, 0.38-1.39; p = 0.20), and NSBB types (propranolol/timolol, RR 1.06, 0.72-1.55; carvedilol, RR 0.95, 0.42-2.15; p = 0.82). Current evidence does not indicate a statistically significant association between NSBB therapy and HE development in patients with cirrhosis, regardless of disease severity.

PMID 42870342
Read full article →
PubMedOphthalmology. Glaucoma2026-10-13

Scleral-Tunneled, Graft-Free Glaucoma Drainage Device Implantation in Children: Outcomes from a US Tertiary Center.

Hussein Musse M, Jiang Ziou Z, Areaux Raymond G RG

To report IOP outcomes, medication use, tube exposure rates, and surgical durability following ST-GDD in children. Retrospective cohort study SUBJECTS, PARTICIPANTS, AND/OR CONTROLS: 40 eyes (32 patients) under age 18 undergoing ST-GDD at the University of Minnesota (2018-2025) with at least 6 months of follow-up. Fourteen eyes received an Ahmed FP-7 valve (New World Medical) and 26 a Baerveldt 350 implant (Alcon). Primary outcome was IOP control at 6 months and final follow-up. Four groups were analyzed: 1) complete success (IOP 6-21 mm Hg off medications), 2) qualified success (6-21 mm Hg on medications), 3) tolerable success (22-25 mm Hg without progression), or 4) failure (IOP above target, systemic acetazolamide, loss of light perception, or major reoperation). Kaplan-Meier analyses were performed using both a traditional clinical definition (failure = group 4) and a more stringent ("austere") definition (failure = groups 3 and 4). Tube exposure was the primary safety endpoint. Mean age was 90.81 months; 71.9% were male. Preoperative mean IOP was 34.5 mm Hg (SD, 6.2) on 3.8 medications (SD, 0.9). At 6 months, IOP fell to 15.75 mm Hg (mean difference, -18.75; 95% CI, -20.8 to -16.7; P < .001) and medications to 0.42 (mean difference, -3.38; 95% CI, -3.73 to -3.02; P < .001). At final follow-up (mean, 36.7 months; range, 6-90 months), mean IOP was 17.78 mm Hg on 0.98 medications (both P < .001 vs baseline). At 6 months, 77.5% achieved complete and 17.5% qualified success with no failures; at final follow-up, 50% complete, 30% qualified, 15% tolerable, and 5% failure. Kaplan-Meier estimated clinical success was 93% and austere success 71.1%; most failures occurred within 32 months. No tube exposures or erosions were observed. This is the first US report of ST-GDD outcomes in children. During a mean follow-up of 36.7 months (range, 6-90 months), ST-GDD resulted in sustained IOP reduction, decreased medication burden, and zero tube exposures. Longer-term prospective comparisons with conventional patch-graft techniques are needed.

PMID 42863787
Read full article →
PubMedJournal of orthopaedic surgery (Hong Kong)2026-10-11

Osteoporosis risk in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma using muscarinic and prostaglandin agonists: A retrospective cohort study.

Bisiani Joseph J, Zhu Jonathan J, Lynch Brian B

BackgroundGlaucoma is the leading cause of irreversible blindness worldwide, with primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) arising as the most common subtype. Recent studies have shown that muscarinic and prostaglandin pathways can modulate bone remodeling under systemic, context-dependent conditions. M3 muscarinic receptor activation has been linked to increased bone formation and decreased resorption, whereas continuous prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) administration inhibits bone resorption, with intermittent use inducing bone formation. Given the minimal systemic findings of topical ophthalmic medications, the clinical relevance of bone remodeling effects for patients treated with glaucoma eye drops, particularly in regard to osteoporosis, remains uncertain and warrants evaluation.Patients and MethodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted using the TriNetX network with approximately 100 million de-identified electronic medical records. Cohorts included POAG patients prescribed either prostaglandin analogs (e.g. latanoprost, bimatoprost, travoprost, tafluprost) without muscarinic agonist use, or muscarinic M3 agonists (e.g. pilocarpine, carbachol) without prostaglandin analog use. Propensity score matching was performed for age, sex, comorbidities, and concurrent glaucoma medications to limit possible cofounders. The outcome was defined as a diagnosis of osteoporosis without current pathological fracture (ICD code M81). Risk ratios (RR), odd ratios (OR), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated.ResultsAfter matching, each cohort included 6,743 patients. The incidence of osteoporosis is 13.3% in the prostaglandin cohort and 8.9% in the muscarinic cohort. Prostaglandin agonist use was associated with a statistically significant increase in osteoporosis risk (RR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.60-0.73; OR = 0.63, 95% CI 0.57-0.71; p < 0.0001).ConclusionProstaglandin agonist use was associated with an increased risk of osteoporosis compared with muscarinic agonist therapy in POAG patients. These findings suggest potential systemic effects (e.g. changes to bone health) of prostaglandin agonist use beyond previously known local, ocular effects and highlight the importance of considering osteoporosis risk in glaucoma management.

PMID 42859920
Read full article →
PubMedActa paediatrica (Oslo, Norway : 1992)2026-10-10

Oral Propranolol Versus Topical Timolol for the Treatment of Infantile Haemangiomas: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Weng Liwen L, Zuo Hongli H, Zhao Min M, Dong Jialin J

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of oral propranolol versus topical timolol for the treatment of superficial infantile haemangiomas. We systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science and China National Knowledge Infrastructure from inception to April 23, 2026. Only randomized controlled trials comparing oral propranolol with topical timolol for superficial infantile haemangiomas were included. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool. The primary outcomes were overall response rate and incidence of systemic adverse events. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using fixed-effect models. Seven randomized controlled trials comprising 428 infants were included. Topical timolol was comparable to oral propranolol in overall response rate (RR = 1.09, 95% CI 0.97-1.23, p = 0.17; I2 = 0%). Topical timolol significantly reduced the risk of systemic adverse events compared with oral propranolol (RR = 0.35, 95% CI 0.20-0.59, p < 0.0001; I2 = 9%). Topical timolol demonstrates comparable efficacy to oral propranolol for superficial infantile haemangiomas and has a significantly superior safety profile with a 65% reduction in systemic adverse events.

PMID 42855991
Read full article →

+7356 more articles available with a free account

Sign up free to view all articles →

Ask about travoprost + timolol