A European perspective on costs and cost effectiveness of ophthalmic combinations in the treatment of open-angle glaucoma.

PURPOSE: Efficacy, safety, and cost implications are important considerations when choosing an ophthalmic treatment. Fixed-combination glaucoma medications containing brimonidine 0.2% and timolol 0.5%, or dorzolamide 2% and timolol 0.5%, were compared with brimonidine 0.2% and dorzolamide 2% that were used as adjunctive therapy to timolol 0.5%. METHODS: A literature review was conducted to determine the outcome parameters of intraocular pressure reduction and tolerability after 3 months of use of brimonidine or dorzolamide, each together with timolol as a fixed-combination or in concomitant therapy. Modelled cost-minimization and cost-effectiveness analyses were performed to investigate the economic consequences of ophthalmic therapy with brimonidine, dorzolamide, and timolol from a societal perspective. RESULTS: The literature review found that brimonidine and dorzolamide used as fixed combinations with timolol as well as in adjunctive therapy to timolol were equally effective and safe. Furthermore, in the European countries studied, the fixed combination of brimonidine/timolol represented a less costly option when compared to the fixed combination of dorzolamide/timolol evaluated over both a 3-month and a 12-month horizon. CONCLUSIONS: Brimonidine used as a fixed-combination therapy with timolol provided better cost value than dorzolamide/timolol in all the countries studied. For most countries, the fixed combination of brimonidine and timolol also provided better cost value than adjunctive therapy with brimonidine, which was more cost effective than adjunctive therapy with dorzolamide.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of fixed-combination therapies in patients with open-angle glaucoma: a European perspective.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and cost implications of the use of the intraocular pressure-lowering prostaglandin analogues bimatoprost, travoprost, and latanoprost as fixed-combination therapies with timolol, a beta-adrenergic receptor antagonist. METHODS: A decision analytic cost-effectiveness model was constructed. Since no head-to-head studies comparing the three treatment options exist, the analysis was based on an indirect comparison. Hence, the model was based on efficacy data from five randomized, controlled, clinical studies. The studies were comparable with respect to study design, time horizon, patient population and type of end point presented. The measure of effectiveness was the percentage reduction of the intraocular pressure level from baseline. The cost evaluated was the cost of medication and clinical visits to the ophthalmologist. All drug costs were market prices inclusive of value-added tax, and visit costs were priced using official physician fees. Cost-effectiveness analyses were carried out in five European countries: Spain, Italy, United Kingdom, Norway and Sweden. The time horizon for the analyses was 3 months. RESULTS: The analysis showed that fixed-combination bimatoprost/timolol was more effective and less costly than fixed-combination travoprost/timolol and fixed-combination latanoprost/timolol in three out of the five countries analyzed. In two countries, bimatoprost/timolol was less costly than latanoprost/timolol, and cost the same as travoprost/timolol. CONCLUSIONS: This cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the fixed combination of bimatoprost 0.03%/timolol 0.5% administered once daily was a cost-effective treatment option for patients with primary open-angle glaucoma. This study was limited by available clinical data: without a head-to-head trial, indirect comparisons were necessary. In the United Kingdom, Sweden, Norway, Italy, and Spain, from a health service viewpoint, bimatoprost/timolol was a slightly more effective as well as less costly treatment strategy when compared to both travoprost/timolol and latanoprost/timolol.