Brimonidine 2mg/ml / Timolol 5mg/ml eye drops
Requires a prescription from a doctor or prescriber
Official documents, adverse reaction reporting, and safety monitoring
Report a side effect
Submit a Yellow Card report to the MHRA
Official medicine documents
Yellow Card
Report side effects (MHRA)
Drug safety updates
MHRA alerts for Brimonidine + Timolol
Safety monitoring data
Yellow Card reports
The MHRA Yellow Card scheme collects reports of suspected side effects from healthcare professionals and patients. View the Drug Analysis Profile (iDAP) for real-world adverse reaction data.
View Drug Analysis Profile
Browse all Drug Analysis Profiles A–Z
Browse all iDAP reports
Interactive Drug Analysis Profiles for all medicines
Report a side effect
Submit a Yellow Card report to the MHRA
Data from the MHRA Yellow Card scheme. A reported reaction does not necessarily mean the medicine caused it. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
EudraVigilance
The European Medicines Agency (EMA) collects suspected adverse reaction reports from across the EU/EEA through the EudraVigilance system. Search for safety data on this medicine.
Search EudraVigilance database
Browse substances A–Z in the European adverse reaction database
About EudraVigilance
Learn about EU pharmacovigilance and safety monitoring
EudraVigilance data is published by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). A suspected adverse reaction is not necessarily caused by the medicine.
10 branded products available
MHRA licensed products
View all licensed products for Brimonidine + Timolol on the MHRA register
Combigan eye drops
Combigan eye drops
Brimonidine 2mg/ml / Timolol 5mg/ml eye drops
Brimonidine 2mg/ml / Timolol 5mg/ml eye drops
Brimonidine 2mg/ml / Timolol 5mg/ml eye drops
Brimonidine 2mg/ml / Timolol 5mg/ml eye drops
This is the NHS Drug Tariff indicative price used for reimbursement purposes. It may not reflect the price paid by patients or pharmacies.
View full Drug TariffSource: NHS Drug Tariff via NHSBSA. Derived from dm+d VMPP (Virtual Medicinal Product Pack) pricing data. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
Therapeutically similar medicines
Similarity is based on WHO Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification and on a factual NHS dm+d therapeutic-grouping code prefix. Source data: NHS dm+d via TRUD (OGL v3.0), WHO ATC/DDD Index.
NHS prescribing volume and spending trends
Guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
NICE clinical guidance(1)
Source: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
Check stock at pharmacies and supply information
Pharmacy stock checkers
Search for this medicine at major UK pharmacy chains. These links open the retailer's own website — results depend on their current online catalogue.
Supply & safety information
Official UK regulator monitoring and safety alerts
Pharmacy links redirect to the retailer's own search and do not represent real-time stock levels. Shortage and safety information sourced from MHRA drug safety updates (gov.uk, Crown Copyright under OGL v3.0).
Codes for healthcare professionals and prescribing systems
These codes are used by healthcare IT systems and prescribers to identify this medicine.
NHS UK identifiers
Browse tools
SNOMED CT and dm+d codes from NHS TRUD (Technology Reference data Update Distribution), licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. ATC codes from the WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology (whocc.no).
Active and completed clinical studies from ClinicalTrials.gov
Source: ClinicalTrials.gov, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM), National Institutes of Health (NIH). Data accessed via ClinicalTrials.gov API v2. Trial information is provided for research purposes and does not constitute medical advice.
Academic studies and reviews for this medicine's active substance
Showing the 50 most relevant studies.
Reviews & meta-analyses: 6 · Randomised trials: 17 · 1996–2026
Showing the 50 most relevant studies, sorted by most relevant.
Sverstad A, Møller JR, Virgili G, et al.
2025
Purpose: Standard automated perimetry (SAP) remains the gold standard functional test in glaucoma, used primarily for evaluating peripheral vision loss. Central contrast sensitivity (CCS) has emerged as a potential early functional marker of glaucomatous damage. This systematic review aimed to describe the different methods used to measure CCS in randomized controlled trials (RCT) involving glaucoma patients. Methods: We searched the MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Epistemonikos, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases on 25 January 2023, and updated the search on 12 February 2025. Eligible studies comprised RCTs that reported CCS as an outcome in patients with glaucoma, suspected glaucoma, or ocular hypertension. No restrictions were placed on age, sex, ethnicity, geography, intervention, or publication year. Abstracts and full texts were screened independently by two reviewers. Descriptive statistics were used. No formal risk of bias assessment was performed, due to the descriptive nature of the review. Results: Of 1066 records screened, 31 studies met the eligibility criteria. The study sample size ranged from 7 to 207 (median: 23), with most studies involving primary open-angle glaucoma. Interventions were diverse, mainly involving topical medications, with timolol being the most frequent. Eleven CCS test methods were identified. Five studies did not report the method used. The CSV-1000 was the most commonly used test, being applied in 11 studies. Conclusions: CCS has been measured using a wide range of methods in glaucoma RCTs, with limited standardization. Most of the included studies were small, variably reported, and conducted over 10 years ago, suggesting a decreasing interest in CCS as an outcome measure in glaucoma RCTs. Funding: This review was funded by Oslo University Hospital and the Research Council of Norway. Registration: This review was registered on the OSF.
Abstract licence: CC BY
Raymond P LeBlanc
Ophthalmology, 1998
Myung-Kyung Kim, C. Lee, J. Shin, et al.
Journal of Clinical Medicine, 2025
M. Inatani, Yusuke Orii, Kentaro Iwasaki, et al.
Advances in Therapy, 2023
Machado LF, Kawamuro M, Bando A, et al.
2026
- Glaucoma, Angle-Closure
- Glaucoma, Open-Angle
- Timolol
Belalcazar S, Tornero-Jimenez A, Mejia-Morales C, et al.
2026
Lian-Di Gao, Guo-Cai Lu, Shi-Wei Cheng, et al.
2012
Francisco Gómez-Aguayo, José A. Paczka, Rubén Leñero-Córdova, et al.
Ophthalmology and Therapy, 2018
Abstract Introduction The aim of this prospective crossover study was to evaluate the non-inferiority of PRO-122 (a preservative-free fixed combination) compared with 0.5% timolol + 0.2% brimonidine + 2.0% dorzolamide fixed combination (KOF) by evaluating its efficacy, tolerability and safety in subjects with controlled primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) previously treated with KOF for at least 2 months. Methods In a prospective, crossover, randomized, double-masked multicenter study, patients previously treated with KOF were randomly assigned to receive either PRO-122 or KOF for 30 days. On day 31, the A sequence changed to KOF, while the B sequence received PRO-122. All patients remained in the protocol for 30 additional days for a total of 60 days. The main efficacy endpoint was maintaining the controlled intraocular pressure (IOP). The safety and tolerability of both products were assessed by the presence of adverse events (AEs), ocular findings, a questionnaire on ocular comfort and the VF-14 index. Results A total of 51 patients participated. After application of PRO-122 twice a day, its efficacy was demonstrated through maintenance of the controlled IOP in patients previously controlled with KOF. The crossover between PRO-122 and KOF and vice versa, after 30 days of use, did not affect IOP control. PRO-122 was shown not to be inferior to KOF in maintaining IOP at control levels. The safety of both drugs is similar, as neither presented drug-related AEs or differences regarding safety issues. The tolerability of the two medications—evaluated by ocular findings, the questionnaire on ocular comfort and the VF-14 index—was also determined to be similar. Conclusions The controlled IOP in patients with controlled POAG treated with PRO-122 was maintained both in relation to the initial controlled IOP of the study and when compared with KOF in the B sequence. Finally, the treatment with PRO-122 demonstrated similar safety and tolerability to KOF. Funding Laboratorios Sophia, S.A. de C.V. (Zapopan, Jalisco, México). Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03257813 (registered retrospectively).
Abstract licence: CC BY 4.0
Yu Yokoyama, R. Kawasaki, Hidetoshi Takahashi, et al.
Journal of Glaucoma, 2019
B. Susanna, C. Susanna, F. Susanna, et al.
Journal of Glaucoma, 2022
Sources: aggregated from Europe PMC (EMBL-EBI), OpenAlex, Crossref, PubMed and other open scholarly databases. Retracted articles are excluded. Study information is provided for research purposes and does not constitute medical advice.
Scientific data (pharmacology, interactions, ADME) is not yet available for this medicine. Clinical sections are sourced from the NHS dm+d database.