vol1 - Page 251

Page 251 Previous , Next , Original Image
Return to Index

 Finallyt there is no evidence in the record, other than
 Green's assertions to suggest timolol was approved for any india
 cation other than the traditional indication: as an intraocular
 antihypertensiVeo There is no evidence in the record to suggest
 Merke, Sharp & Dome, the manufacturer of Timoptic, has ever
 claimed use of Timoptic results in a retention of visual
 field. _/ And the research on visual field retention which has
 emerged since Timoptic's approval is e_remely contradictoryo _5-/
 The AAO, in its #timely _ repc_rt_ _/ states na long
 term clinical study, designedto test the safety and efficacy of
 marijuana in the prevention of progressive optic nerve damage and
 ....... i
 consequent visual field loss_ appears appropriateo w_5X/ There is
 not indication in the record the AAO made similar demands prior
 to Timolol's NDA approval.
 .... >
 When, during cross-examination by Mro Zeese, Keith
 Green was asked why, nearly twenty years after Heplerts initial
 report of lOP reduction, such a study had not been undertaken,
 Dr. Green offered this revealing response:
 ___._/ ACT Rebuttal Exhibits_ B4 #Timoptic . . o has been shown
 to be effective in lowering intraocular pressure .... n
 ........... 55_/ Cross_examination of Dr. John Merritt, Tr. I0-187. See
 _19__ Affidavit of Dr. George Spaeth at p_ 7. Spaeth, in his
 direct testimony, reports on a single patient study which sug _
 gests timolol actually caused an erosion of visual function.
 ___._/ The Academy withheld its report which was concocted in
 ..... i_ 1984-85 until June 21, 1987. There is _o evidence to sugqest
 that prior to release and in the two years between the com-
 mitteeSs meeting and the Report's publication that the issue was
 discussed beyond the limited, confines of the AAO Ad Hoc
 Committee on Marijuana Leqislation.
 55// Affidavit of Robert Randall_ Exhibit 15B, Affidavit of Dr_
 Robert Helper, Exhibit 2_ p_ 4.
 - -

Previous , Next , Return to Index