Maximizing cost-effectiveness by adjusting treatment strategy according to glaucoma severity.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to determine the most cost-effective strategy for the treatment of primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) in Brazil, from the payer's perspective (Brazilian Public Health System) in the setting of the Glaucoma Referral Centers. METHODS: Study design was a cost-effectiveness analysis of different treatment strategies for POAG. We developed 3 Markov models (one for each glaucoma stage: early, moderate and advanced), using a hypothetical cohort of POAG patients, from the perspective of the Brazilian Public Health System (SUS) and a horizon of the average life expectancy of the Brazilian population. Different strategies were tested according to disease severity. For early glaucoma, we compared observation, laser and medications. For moderate glaucoma, medications, laser and surgery. For advanced glaucoma, medications and surgery. Main outcome measures were ICER (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio), medical direct costs and QALY (quality-adjusted life year). RESULTS: In early glaucoma, both laser and medical treatment were cost-effective (ICERs of initial laser and initial medical treatment over observation only, were R$ 2,811.39/QALY and R$ 3,450.47/QALY). Compared to observation strategy, the two alternatives have provided significant gains in quality of life. In moderate glaucoma population, medical treatment presented the highest costs among treatment strategies. Both laser and surgery were highly cost-effective in this group. For advanced glaucoma, both tested strategies were cost-effective. Starting age had a great impact on results in all studied groups. Initiating glaucoma therapy using laser or surgery were more cost-effective, the younger the patient. CONCLUSION: All tested treatment strategies for glaucoma provided real gains in quality of life and were cost-effective. However, according to the disease severity, not all strategies provided the same cost-effectiveness profile. Based on our findings, there should be a preferred strategy for each glaucoma stage, according to a cost-effectiveness ratio ranking.

Cost-effectiveness comparison between non-penetrating deep sclerectomy and maximum-tolerated medical therapy for glaucoma within the Brazilian National Health System (SUS).

PURPOSE: Non-penetrating deep sclerectomy (NPDS) has emerged as a viable option in the surgical management of open-angle glaucoma. Our aim is to assess the cost-effectiveness of NPDS and to compare it to maximum medical treatment in a 5-year follow-up. METHODS: A decision analysis model was built. Surgical (NPDS) arm of the decision tree was observational (consecutive retrospective case series) and maximum medical treatment arm was hypothetical. Maximum medical therapy was considered a three-drug regimen (association of a fixed combination of timolol/dorzolamide [FCTD] and a prostaglandin analogue [bimatoprost, latanoprost or travoprost]). Cost-effectiveness ratio was defined as direct cost (US dollars) for each percentage of intraocular pressure (IOP) reduction. Horizon was 5 years and perspective is from the public health care service in Brazil (SUS). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated. RESULTS: Direct cost for each percentage of IOP reduction in 5 years (cost-effectiveness ratio) was US$ 10.19 for NPDS; US$ 37.45 for the association of a FCTD and bimatoprost; US$ 39.33 for FCTD and travoprost; and US$ 41.42 for FCTD and latanoprost. NPDS demonstrated a better cost-effectiveness ratio, compared to maximum medical therapy. The ICER was negative for all medical treatment options; therefore NPDS was dominant. CONCLUSIONS: Despite some limitations, NPDS was both less costly and more effective than maximum medical therapy. From the Brazilian public health perspective, it was the most cost-effective treatment option when compared to maximum medical therapy (FCTD and prostaglandin).

Cost-effectiveness comparison between non-penetrating deep sclerectomy and maximum-tolerated medical therapy for glaucoma within the Brazilian National Health System (SUS) / Comparação de custo-efetividade entre a esclerectomia profunda não penetrante e a terapia clínica máxima tolerada para o glaucoma no Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS)

PURPOSE: Non-penetrating deep sclerectomy (NPDS) has emerged as a viable option in the surgical management of open-angle glaucoma. Our aim is to assess the cost-effectiveness of NPDS and to compare it to maximum medical treatment in a 5-year follow-up. METHODS: A decision analysis model was built. Surgical (NPDS) arm of the decision tree was observational (consecutive retrospective case series) and maximum medical treatment arm was hypothetical. Maximum medical therapy was considered a three-drug regimen (association of a fixed combination of timolol/dorzolamide [FCTD] and a prostaglandin analogue [bimatoprost, latanoprost or travoprost]). Cost-effectiveness ratio was defined as direct cost (US dollars) for each percentage of intraocular pressure (IOP) reduction. Horizon was 5 years and perspective is from the public health care service in Brazil (SUS). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated. RESULTS: Direct cost for each percentage of IOP reduction in 5 years (cost-effectiveness ratio) was US$ 10.19 for NPDS; US$ 37.45 for the association of a FCTD and bimatoprost; US$ 39.33 for FCTD and travoprost; and US$ 41.42 for FCTD and latanoprost. NPDS demonstrated a better cost-effectiveness ratio, compared to maximum medical therapy. The ICER was negative for all medical treatment options; therefore NPDS was dominant. CONCLUSIONS: Despite some limitations, NPDS was both less costly and more effective than maximum medical therapy. From the Brazilian public health perspective, it was the most cost-effective treatment option when compared to maximum medical therapy (FCTD and prostaglandin).

OBJETIVO: A esclerectomia profunda não penetrante (EPNP) é uma opção viável para o tratamento cirúrgico do glaucoma de ângulo aberto. O objetivo deste estudo é avaliar a relação custo-efetividade da EPNP e compará-la com terapia clínica máxima (TCM) em um acompanhamento de 5 anos. MÉTODOS: Um modelo de análise de decisão foi proposto comparando-se o tratamento cirúrgico (EPNP) versus a TCM. A avaliação da EPNP foi observacional retrospectiva de uma série consecutiva de casos e da TCM foi hipotética. A TCM foi considerada como o uso de três drogas (associação de uma combinação fixa de timolol/dorzolamida [CFTD] e um análogo de prostaglandina [bimatoprosta, latanoprosta ou travoprosta]). A relação custo-efetividade foi definida com o custo direto (em dólares) para cada porcentual de redução da pressão intraocular (PIO). A razão de custo-efetividade incremental (ICER) foi calculada. O seguimento foi de 5 anos e a perspectiva dos custos é do Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS). RESULTADOS: O custo direto para cada porcentual de redução da PIO ao final de 5 anos (relação custo-efetividade) foi de US$ 10,19 para a EPNP; US$ 37,45 para a CFTD + bimatoprosta; US$ 39,33 para CFTD + travoprosta; e US$ 41,42 para CFTD + latanoprosta. A EPNP apresentou uma melhor relação custo-efetividade, quando comparada com a TCM. O índice ICER foi negativo, portanto a EPNP foi a opção terapêutica dominante. CONCLUSÃO: A EPNP foi menos custosa e mais efetiva que a TCM. Do ponto de vista do SUS, ela foi a opção mais custo-efetiva, quando comparada com a TCM.

Avaliação econômica das associações fixas de prostaglandina/prostamida e timolol no tratamento do glaucoma e da hipertensão ocular / Economic evaluation of prostaglandin/prostamide and timolol fixed combinations in the treatment of glaucoma and ocular hypertension

OBJETIVO: Avaliar o custo ao final de 5 anos, a efetividade e a relação custo-efetividade das associações fixas de prostaglandina ou prostamida com timolol 0,5 por cento para o tratamento do glaucoma e da hipertensão ocular no Estado de Minas Gerais, Brasil. MÉTODOS: Este estudo transversal avaliou as seguintes associações fixas: bimatoprosta/timolol 0,5 por cento (BT), latanoprosta/timolol 0,5 por cento (LT) e travoprosta/timolol 0,5 por cento (TT). O custo foi calculado a partir do número médio de gotas de 5 frascos de cada associação, da duração (dias) e do preço máximo ao consumidor (PMC). A efetividade na redução da pressão intraocular (PIO) foi obtida na literatura. Para cada uma das associações, calculou-se o custo diário, mensal, anual e em 5 anos. A relação custo-efetividade foi definida como o custo em 5 anos de cada percentual de redução da PIO. RESULTADOS: O PMC, número médio de gotas por frasco e a duração média (dias) foram, respectivamente: R$ 83,07; 109,4 e 54,7 para BT; R$ 126,03; 97,0 e 48,5 para LT e R$ 97,47; 96 e 48,0 para TT. A capacidade de redução percentual da PIO encontrada na literatura foi 35,10 por cento para BT, 35,00 por cento para LT e 34,70 por cento para TT. O custo em 5 anos para cada percentual de redução da PIO foi de R$ 61,02 para BT, R$ 104,71 para LT e R$ 82,53 para TT. A associação BT é dominante sobre as demais. CONCLUSÕES: BT apresentou em 5 anos menor custo e maior efetividade que LT e TT.

PURPOSE:To assess the 5-year cost, effectiveness and costeffectiveness of fixed combinations of prostaglandin or prostamide and timolol 0. 5 percent on glaucoma and/or ocular hypertension in the state of Minas Gerais, Brazil. METHODS: This cross-sectional study evaluated the following fixed combinations: bimatoprost/timolol 0. 5 percent (BT), latanoprost/timolol 0. 5 percent (LT) and travoprost/ timolol 0. 5 percent (TT). Cost was obtained through mean number of drops in a sample of 5 containers of each medication, duration (days) and the average wholesale price (AWP). Effectiveness in reducing intraocular pressure IOP was derived from the literature. Daily, monthly, annually and 5-year cost was calculated. Costeffectiveness was defined as cost by each percentage of IOP reduction over 5 years. RESULTS: AWP, mean number of drops and mean duration (days) were: R$ 83. 07; 109. 4 and 54. 7 for BT; R$ 126. 03; 97. 0 and 48. 5 for LT and R$ 97. 47; 96. 0 and 48. 0 for TT. Mean percentage of IOP reduction, obtained from literature, was: 35. 10 percent for BT, 35. 00 percent for LT and 34. 70 percent for TT. Cost-effetiveness ratio (R$/ percent) was: 61. 02 for BT, 104. 71 for LT and 82. 53 for TT. BT was dominant over LT and TT. CONCLUSION: BT presented lower costs and better effectiveness when compared to LT and TT. The most cost-effective fixed combination was BT.