An adherence based cost-consequence model comparing bimatoprost 0.01% to bimatoprost 0.03%.

OBJECTIVES: Estimate the long-term direct medical costs and clinical consequences of improved adherence with bimatoprost 0.01% compared to bimatoprost 0.03% in the treatment of glaucoma. METHODS: A cost-consequence model was constructed from the perspective of a US healthcare payer. The model structure included three adherence levels (high, moderate, low) and four mean deviation (MD) defined health states (mild, moderate, severe glaucoma, blindness) for each adherence level. Clinical efficacy in terms of IOP reduction was obtained from the randomized controlled trial comparing bimatoprost 0.01% with bimatoprost 0.03%. Medication adherence was based on observed 12 month rates from an analysis of a nationally representative pharmacy claims database. Patients with high, moderate and low adherence were assumed to receive 100%, 50% and 0% of the IOP reduction observed in the clinical trial, respectively. Each 1 mmHg reduction in IOP was assumed to result in a 10% reduction in the risk of glaucoma progression. Worse glaucoma severity health states were associated with higher medical resource costs. Outcome measures were total costs, proportion of patients who progress and who become blind, and years of blindness. Deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed on uncertain model parameters. RESULTS: The percentage of patients progressing, becoming blind, and the time spent blind slightly favored bimatoprost 0.01%. Improved adherence with bimatoprost 0.01% led to higher costs in the first 2 years; however, starting in year 3 bimatoprost 0.01% became less costly compared to bimatoprost 0.03% with a total reduction in costs reaching US$3433 over a lifetime time horizon. Deterministic sensitivity analyses demonstrated that results were robust, with the majority of analyses favoring bimatoprost 0.01%. Application of 1 year adherence and efficacy over the long term are limitations. CONCLUSIONS: Modeling the effect of greater medication adherence with bimatoprost 0.01% compared with bimatoprost 0.03% suggests that differences may result in improved economic and patient outcomes.

Cost-effectiveness of medications compared with laser trabeculoplasty in patients with newly diagnosed open-angle glaucoma.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the most cost-effective treatment option for patients with newly diagnosed mild open-angle glaucoma: observation only, treatment with generic topical prostaglandin analogs (PGAs), or treatment with laser trabeculoplasty (LTP). METHODS: Using a Markov model with a 25-year horizon, we compared the incremental cost-effectiveness of treating newly diagnosed mild open-angle glaucoma with PGAs, LTP, or observation only. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness of LTP over no treatment is $16,824 per quality-adjusted life year. By comparison, the incremental cost-effectiveness of PGAs over no treatment is $14,179 per quality-adjusted life year, and they provide greater health-related quality of life relative to LTP. If PGAs are 25% less effective owing to poor patient adherence, LTP can confer greater value. CONCLUSIONS: Prostaglandin analogs and LTP are both cost-effective options for the management of newly diagnosed mild open-angle glaucoma. Assuming optimal medication adherence, PGAs confer greater value compared with LTP. However, when assuming more realistic levels of medication adherence (making them 25% less effective than the documented effectiveness reported in clinical trials), at current prices for PGAs, LTP may be a more cost-effective alternative.

Long-term medical management of primary open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension in the UK: optimizing cost-effectiveness and clinic resources by minimizing therapy switches.

PURPOSE: The objective was to assess the long-term economic consequences of the medical management of glaucoma in the UK. METHODS: The economic evaluation was conducted using the results from a 10-year Markov model based around 3 key triggers for a switch in medical therapy for glaucoma, namely: lack of tolerance (using hyperemia as a proxy); intraocular pressure (IOP) not meeting treatment benchmark; and glaucoma progression. Clinical data from a comprehensive systematic literature review and meta-analysis were used. Direct costs associated with glaucoma treatment are considered (at 2008/9 prices) from the perspective of the UK NHS as payer (outpatient/secondary care setting). Using this model, the economic consequences of 3 prostaglandin-based treatment sequences were compared. RESULTS: Drug acquisition costs account for around 8% to 13% of the total cost of glaucoma and, if ophthalmologist visits are included, amount to approximately £0.80 to £0.90 per day of medical therapy. The total long-term costs of all prostaglandin strategies are similar because of a shift in resources: increased drug costs are offset by fewer clinic visits to instigate treatment switches, and by avoiding surgery or costs associated with managing low vision. Under the latanoprost-based strategy, patients would have longer intervals between the need to switch therapies, which is largely due to a reduction in hyperemia, seen as a proxy for tolerance. This leads to a delay in glaucoma progression of 12 to 13 months. For every 1000 clinic appointments, 719 patients can be managed for 1 year with a latanoprost-based strategy compared with 586 or 568 with a bimatoprost or travoprost-based strategy. CONCLUSIONS: Drug acquisition costs are not a key driver of the total cost of glaucoma management and the cost of medical therapy is offset by avoiding the cost of managing low vision. Economic models of glaucoma should include the long-term consequences of treatment as these will affect cost-effectiveness. This analysis supports the hypothesis that the economic and clinical benefits can be optimized by minimizing therapy switches.

Cost-offset analysis: bimatoprost versus other prostaglandin analogues in open-angle glaucoma.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a cost-offset model from a US payer perspective comparing glaucomatous progression and costs among primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) patients using bimatoprost, latanoprost, or travoprost. STUDY DESIGN: Cost-offset model. METHODS: A Markov cohort model was used to estimate glaucomatous progression for POAG patients over 7 years. The model assumed bimatoprost-treated patients had lower resulting intraocular pressure (IOP) (by 1 mm Hg) for all presenting IOP categories than latanoprost- or travoprost-treated patients. Patients with lower IOP were assumed to have lower probability of progression. Those that progressed were assumed to do so at a rate of -0.6 dB per year. Direct costs associated with mean deviation score categories were applied to each treatment cohort to calculate the expected 7-year costs of treating patients with each prostaglandin analogue (PGA). Literature was used to support assumptions. A budget impact analysis was conducted where all travoprost patients switched to generic latanoprost and where all bimatoprost patients switched to generic latanoprost. The base case market share was 22% bimatoprost, 23% travoprost, and 55% latanoprost. RESULTS: Model results demonstrate that for a managed care plan with 9500 PGA-treated glaucoma patients, exclusive bimatoprost use would prevent progression in 136 additional individuals compared with exclusive travoprost or latanoprost treatment. Model results demonstrate that greater IOP reduction from bimatoprost is associated with increased cost savings compared with latanoprost or travoprost treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Model results demonstrate that greater IOP reduction from bimatoprost could reduce managed care spending.

Long-term outcomes of prostaglandin analog versus timolol maleate in ocular hypertensive or primary open-angle glaucoma patients in Europe.

PURPOSE: To determine the direct costs of therapy over 5 years of a European monotherapy cohort begun on a prostaglandin (PTG) versus timolol in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. METHODS: A retrospective, multicenter, active-controlled, observational study. Data were abstracted for European patients treated as initial monotherapy in 1996 or afterward, with 5 years of available records. RESULTS: This study included 271 patients (166 on a PTG and 105 on timolol at baseline). The average cost/month/patient over 5 years was $45.47±12.61 for PTG and $31.50±15.47 for timolol (P<0.001, based on German prices). After 5 years, although there was no difference in number of glaucoma medicines prescribed between groups (1.0 PTGs and 1.1 timolol, P=0.41), the timolol group demonstrated a higher intraocular pressure (17.7±2.9 vs. 16.5±3.0 mm Hg, P<0.001), more medication changes (P=0.01), greater incidence of glaucomatous progression (P=0.04), and less patients persistent on original monotherapy (P<0.001) than the PTG cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Patients originally on timolol monotherapy have a lower cost of care over 5 years than those started on a PTG. However, timolol patients during follow-up may demonstrate a higher intraocular pressure, more progression, more medication changes, and lower persistency of the original monotherapy.

Treatment of glaucoma in clinical practice: four-year results from a patient registry in France.

PURPOSE: To investigate long-term resource consumption and clinical outcome of patients with early primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension treated with prostaglandins in clinical practice in France. METHODS: Thirty-four geographically spread specialized hospitals and private practices enrolled consecutive patients receiving, for the first time, a prostaglandin, alone or in combination. The study was based on routine practice and no consultations, examinations, or treatments were mandated by the protocol. Treating physicians recorded each consultation, including all examinations performed, referrals, admissions, and prescriptions. Descriptive analysis of resource consumption and development of intraocular pressure (IOP) and visual fields was performed, for all patients who completed the 4-year follow-up. RESULTS: The study enrolled 602 patients and 78% completed 4-year follow-up. Mean age was 65 years and mean time since diagnosis was 4 years. Mean IOP was reduced from a baseline of 21.2 mm Hg to 16.5 mm Hg during the first year and remained stable throughout the study. Mean visual fields at baseline were -4.2 mean deviation and stable during the follow-up. Total mean health care costs per patient were €1947, of which medication represented 50%. Over half of the patients (52%) remained on their initial medication during the 4 years. Drug changes were mostly because of inadequate IOP control and the number of treatment switches was significantly related to costs. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first prospective study of treatment with prostaglandins in clinical practice. The results indicate that many patients with early glaucoma managed primarily with prostaglandins will show very little progression over 4 years. Compared with the mid-90s, costs have not increased despite the higher acquisition cost of prostaglandins, as surgical interventions and medical consultations have decreased.

Hyperemia-associated costs of medication changes in glaucoma patients treated initially with prostaglandin analogs.

AIMS: To develop a model to estimate and compare the cost of changing therapy due to hyperemia in glaucoma patients treated initially either with latanoprost, bimatoprost, or travoprost monotherapy. METHODS: Data collected from the HealthCore Integrated Research Database, as part of the Glaucoma Adherence and Persistency Study (GAPS), were used to populate the model. Patients with a documented diagnosis of glaucoma who were newly treated (no ocular hypotensive medication and no glaucoma-related procedure during 6 months before first prescription) with latanoprost, bimatoprost, or travoprost monotherapy were identified. The time horizon for the base-case model was the duration of chart abstraction (mean = 4.1 years); a 3-month model also was developed. Physician-reported rates of hyperemia were obtained from chart reviews of 300 patients. Transition rates reflected events related to reports of hyperemia where a physician-driven change (switch or discontinuation) in therapy was documented. The per-patient direct cost (2008) due to hyperemia-driven change in therapy was calculated as the sum of the cost of the initial prescription plus the cost of the office visit where the patient was evaluated and the decision to change therapy was made. Costs were stratified by whether patients were hyperemia free or discontinued the initial therapy due to hyperemia. RESULTS: From the sample of 13,977 newly treated patients, 8,743 patients were started on a prostaglandin monotherapy only. Of these, 5,726 received latanoprost, 1,633 were treated with bimatoprost, and 1,384 received travoprost index monotherapy. Across all treatment groups, costs among hyperemia-free patients were US$73.67 versus US$140.02 for those who discontinued the initial prostaglandin due to hyperemia. Per-patient costs were lowest in the group treated initially with latanoprost. For the base-case model, with latanoprost as the reference, total per-patient incremental costs due to hyperemia-driven change in therapy were US$5.92 for bimatoprost and US$5.43 for travoprost. Results were not highly sensitive to increases either in the incidence of hyperemia among latanoprost-treated patients or in the cost of latanoprost. CONCLUSIONS: Hyperemia results in increased overall costs in patients treated with latanoprost, bimatoprost, and travoprost. Treatment with latanoprost is associated with lower hyperemia-related costs than treatment with bimatoprost or travoprost.

First-year treatment patterns among new initiators of topical prostaglandin analogs.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate treatment patterns and costs among new initiators of topical prostaglandin analogs in a managed-care population. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Annual costs were modeled using multiple inputs. A retrospective cohort design was used to identify treatment patterns for pharmacotherapy. The study population was identified from pharmacy claims for patients who met study inclusion criteria (patients initiating prostaglandin analog monotherapy). Published studies were used to estimate visit-related resource use and costs were obtained from published and standard sources. RESULTS: In the cohort analysis, a total of 12 202 patients met study criteria: 2275 received bimatoprost, 7347 received latanoprost and 2580 received travoprost (1808 used the original formulation and 772 used the newer preservative formulation). Of patients meeting study criteria, 50% stopped all glaucoma therapy, 6% switched from their initial prostaglandin therapy, and the remaining 44% stayed on their initial prostaglandin for 1 year. Of patients remaining on prostaglandin analog monotherapy for 1 year, 22.7% of bimatoprost patients, 19.8% of latanoprost patients and 17.9% of travoprost patients (19.7% for the original formulation and 13.7% for the new formulation) required adjunctive therapy. Of those requiring adjunctive therapy, the median number of days until starting adjunctive therapy was 53 days for bimatoprost patients, 63 days for latanoprost patients and 83 days for travoprost patients (70.5 days for the original formulation and 109 days for the new formulation). The resources used at each visit were estimated at $424 for an initial visit and $70 for follow-up visits. Estimated first-year costs were $1294, $1199, and $1186 for patients initiating therapy with bimatoprost, latanoprost, and travoprost, respectively. Estimated travoprost costs were higher for the original formulation ($1203) than for the new formulation ($1160). Sensitivity analyses suggested that the cost estimates are robust to changes in costs and use of adjunctive therapies. LIMITATIONS: The use of a claims database without compliance data or clinical outcomes and the selection of new initiators of topical prostaglandin analogs limits the findings and does not allow projecting outcomes to all glaucoma patients. CONCLUSIONS: Use of adjunctive therapy in glaucoma is an important driver of glaucoma management costs. Based on the results of this study, it is possible that longer duration of monotherapy with prostaglandin analogs may be associated with lower annual costs. Further study should be conducted to validate these findings.

Cost effectiveness of travoprost versus a fixed combination of latanoprost/timolol in patients with ocular hypertension or glaucoma: analysis based on the UK general practitioner research database.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the cost effectiveness of travoprost versus a fixed combination of latanoprost/timolol as first-line therapies for ocular hypertension or glaucoma. METHODS: Patient charts were extracted from the UK General Practitioner Research Database. Patients with ocular hypertension or glaucoma who received first-line treatment with either travoprost or latanoprost/timolol and were followed up for >6 months were included. Treatment failure was defined as a treatment change or a glaucoma intervention (laser therapy or surgery). Time to treatment failure was compared using a Cox model and adjusted by the propensity score method. RESULTS: Eligible patients received either travoprost (n=639) or latanoprost/timolol (n=176). Their mean age was 70 years at diagnosis and 48.2% of patients were male. Patient characteristics did not differ significantly between treatment groups. Treatment failure rates at 1 year were 31.3% (travoprost) and 39.4% (latanoprost/timolol) and yielded a hazard ratio for failure in favour of travoprost (0.75; p<0.04) after adjusting for age, sex, co-morbidities and duration of follow-up. Adjusted annual costs of glaucoma management were significantly (p<0.001) less with travoprost (pound215.86) than with latanoprost/timolol (pound327.83). CONCLUSIONS: In everyday practice, travoprost was maintained longer than latanoprost/timolol as first-line therapy for glaucoma. The mean daily costs of travoprost were 50.8% less per patient than those of latanoprost/timolol. Despite adjustments, these results might be confounded, at least partially, by disease severity.

[Cost-efficacy analysis of fixed combinations of prostaglandin/prostamide for treating glaucoma]. / Análisis coste-eficacia de las combinaciones fijas de prostaglandinas/prostamida para el tratamiento del glaucoma.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-efficacy of three fixed-combination glaucoma treatments currently available in Spain [bimatoprost with timolol (BT)- Ganfort, latanoprost with timolol (LT)- Xalacom, and travoprost with timolol (TT)- DuoTrav]. METHODS: Because no studies are available that give a direct comparison of these drugs, a systematic review was carried out to assess their efficacy. Resource consumption and costs were estimated using a model of usual local practice. For each of the three drugs, average and incremental cost-efficacy ratios were determined in terms of euros per percentage point of reduction of intraocular pressure (IOP) over a three-month period. RESULTS: BT reduced IOP by 35.1%, LT by 35.0% and TT by 34.7%. Average cost-efficacy was estimated to be euro 5.34 per percentage point of IOP reduction with BT, euro 5.40 with LT, and euro 5.45 with TT. Incremental cost-efficacy (incremental cost per incremental percentage point of IOP reduction) was estimated to be euro 94.65 for LT vs. TT, and was negative for BT vs. TT and BT vs. LT, since in both cases BT was more efficacious and less expensive. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to travoprost/timolol and latanoprost/timolol, bimatoprost/timolol appears to be the most economic alternative, with equal or better efficacy and safety results.

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.

Assessment of the cost effectiveness of travoprost versus latanoprost as single agents for treatment of glaucoma in France.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Control of intraocular pressure (IOP) is a major factor in avoiding visual impairment related to glaucoma. Both the cost and the effectiveness of therapy should be considered when initiating this lifelong treatment. The aim of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of travoprost versus latanoprost as single agents for the treatment of glaucoma in France. METHODS: Two surveys, one documenting efficacy and the other costs, were used to provide data for a Markov model. The model reproduced the 5-year course of patients receiving a prostaglandin analogue, travoprost or latanoprost, as monotherapy. The effectiveness criterion was fitted with a Weibull distribution from a national study. Transition probabilities and costs per treatment line were extracted from two French observational databases. Bootstrap techniques were implemented to drive the probabilistic sensitivity analyses. The study compared both treatments given once daily as monotherapy to ambulatory patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. The main outcome measure was mean time to treatment change (MTTC). Possible treatment changes were the addition of adjunctive medication, treatment substitution, laser therapy or surgery. After laser therapy or surgery, patients could continue with no treatment or proceed to prostaglandin analogue as monotherapy or treatment substitution. IOP was stratified at treatment onset as < or =20, 21-23 and > or =24 mmHg, respectively. All costs were expressed in 2005 euros. RESULTS: MTTC was 44.3 months for travoprost and 37.8 for latanoprost. Additional 5-year costs for travoprost were euro51, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio without treatment change of euro95 per year. Of patients treated with latanoprost, 1.9% underwent laser therapy or surgery, compared with 1.2% of patients treated with travoprost. The results differed with baseline IOP values, such that 55.6%, 53.9% and 50.4% of patients with pretreatment IOP values of < or =20, 21-23 and > or =24 mmHg, respectively, continued to receive travoprost treatment at 5 years, compared with 32.3%, 26.1% and 26.1% of patients, respectively, receiving latanoprost. Thus, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) without treatment change were euro140, euro45 and euro123 per year, respectively. CONCLUSION: Travoprost demonstrated a longer effectiveness profile than latanoprost and minimized early treatment changes. The smaller proportion of patients needing a new treatment, laser therapy or surgery virtually compensated for the higher travoprost acquisition cost. Overall, travoprost is cost effective compared with latanoprost, and is most cost effective in patients with pretreatment IOPs between 21 and 23 mmHg.

Refill rates and budget impact of glaucoma lipid therapy: a retrospective database analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Drugs in the lipid class of glaucoma medications, including bimatoprost, travoprost and latanoprost, are effective at lowering intraocular pressure. In addition to clinical efficacy, the budget impact of long-term therapy with each medication is important for patients, physicians and managed-care decision makers to differentiate between the products and make informed decisions regarding the choice of therapy. This study aimed to determine the average number of days between refills for latanoprost, travoprost and bimatoprost, and to estimate the potential effect of differences in refill rates on pharmacy budgets. METHODS: In this retrospective database analysis of pharmacy records, the dispensing patterns of patients with glaucoma lipid therapies were obtained. Patients with a pharmacy prescription for the 2.5 mL bottle of latanoprost, travoprost or bimatoprost between September 2002 and December 2002, and receiving continuous treatment defined as having at least one prescription for the same lipid agent and bottle size 1 year later between September 2003 and December 2003, were included in this study. The main outcome measures were mean number of days between refills, mean number of refills, cost per patient per year (based on the average wholesale price [AWP]), and annual refill cost differences between cohorts. RESULTS: The mean number of days between refills was 46.74 days, 53.65 days and 51.98 days for latanoprost, travoprost and bimatoprost, respectively (p < 0.0001, ANOVA). The mean number of refills per year was 7.1, 6.2 and 6.4 for latanoprost, travoprost and bimatoprost, respectively. Based on this and the AWP, the average cost per patient per year was $US435.16 for latanoprost, $US385.58 for travoprost and $US397.44 for bimatoprost. The cost savings per year if the population of patients using latanoprost (n = 79,820) used bimatoprost or travoprost instead would be approximately $US3.0-$US3.9 million. CONCLUSION: A statistically significant difference in mean days between refills was found among the three studied drugs. Latanoprost presented the highest annual cost followed by bimatoprost and travoprost.

Costs and effectiveness of travoprost versus a dorzolamide + timolol fixed combination in first-line treatment of glaucoma: analysis conducted on the United Kingdom General Practitioner Research Database.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness and associated costs of travoprost versus a fixed combination of dorzolamide + timolol as first-line therapy for glaucoma according to data collected by the United Kingdom General Practitioner Research Database (UK-GPRD). METHODS: Patients with a diagnosis of ocular hypertension, glaucoma, or who had been treated topically by surgery or laser therapy were selected. Patients starting first-line treatment with travoprost or a fixed dorzolamide + timolol combination were included. Times to treatment failure were compared with an adjusted Cox model. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost and treatment failure defined as a prescription change (adding or removing a topical treatment, or initiating laser therapy or surgery). RESULTS: 56 612 patients were extracted from the database and 39 808 patients received at least one topical prescription for IOP-lowering (intraocular pressure) therapy. Of these, 639 were treated with travoprost and 387 with dorzolamide + timolol, as first-line therapies. No significant difference was found between patient characteristics. Patients were aged 70.0 years and 48.5% were male. At 1 year, treatment failure was experienced by 30.4% of patients receiving travoprost and 49.4% receiving dorzolamide + timolol (p < 0.001). The hazard ratio for failure was 0.79 (p < 0.03) less with travoprost, after adjusting on age, gender, comorbidities and duration of follow-up. Adjusted annual costs of glaucoma management were significantly (p < 0.001) lower with travoprost ( pound198.31) than with dorzolamide + timolol ( pound312.21). CONCLUSION: This retrospective costs and consequences analysis study showed that travoprost is more efficient than dorzolamide + timolol as first-line therapy for glaucoma patients. Patients continued longer with first-line treatment when prescribed travoprost at a lower cost.

Pharmacoeconomic analysis of prostaglandin and prostamide therapy for patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension.

BACKGROUND: To determine monthly cost and cost effectiveness of bilateral prostaglandin/prostamide therapy for lowering intraocular pressure (IOP) in patients taking bimatoprost 0.03% (Lumigan, Allergan, Inc.), latanoprost 0.005% (Xalatan, Pfizer, Inc.), or travoprost 0.004% (Travatan, Alcon Laboratories, Inc.). METHODS: Drops in five new 2.5-mL bottles were counted and then averaged for each drug. Average retail price was determined by surveys of pharmacies. Drop count, average retail price, average wholesale price, and IOP reduction data were used to compute annual cost, and cost effectiveness (annual cost-per-mm Hg of IOP reduction) of the three drugs. RESULTS: Drops per 2.5-mL bottle averaged 113 for bimatoprost 0.03%, 84 for latanoprost 0.005%, and 83 for travoprost 0.004%. Average retail cost (2005) per bottle was $69.99 for bimatoprost 0.03%, $61.69 for latanoprost 0.005%, and $66.37 for travoprost 0.004%. The monthly retail cost of bilateral therapy was $37.92 for bimatoprost 0.03%, $44.75 for latanoprost 0.005%, and $49.25 for travoprost 0.004%. Cost effectiveness ranges were $57 to $65 per mm Hg reduction in IOP per year for bimatoprost, 0.03%, $67 to $90 per mm Hg for latanoprost 0.005%, and $74 to $84 per mm Hg for travoprost 0.004%. CONCLUSION: Bimatoprost 0.03% had the lowest monthly and annual costs and the greatest cost effectiveness for lowering IOP compared with latanoprost 0.005% and travoprost 0.004%.

Travoprost versus latanoprost combinations in glaucoma: economic evaluation based on visual field deficit progression.

OBJECTIVE: Changes in intraocular pressure (IOP) are known to be related to visual field deficit progression, although multiple models of this relationship exist. In addition, visual functioning is known to affect medical costs. The objective of this study was to project visual field deficit progression and subsequent costs based on clinical trial data. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Using data from a randomized, 12-month, double-masked study, we compared the use of a fixed combination of travoprost 0.004%/timolol 0.5% (T/T) versus a fixed combination of latanoprost 0.005%/timolol 0.5% (L/T) on visual field deficit progression and associated costs. We applied published algorithms linking IOP to visual field changes to calculate the likelihood of visual field deterioration by treatment group. Differences in medical care costs were estimated using guideline-recommended practice patterns, Medicare hospital costs, and published estimates of differences in hospitalization by visual functioning. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Increase in visual field deficit progression rates, increase in annual hospital days per subject, and increase in annual hospital, outpatient, and total costs per subject. RESULTS: Predicted visual field deficit progression for T/T patients was less than that for L/T patients (not statistically significant). Projected annual medical care costs were 43 dollars lower for T/T vs. L/T patients. CONCLUSIONS: By applying published algorithms linking IOP to visual field changes, this study projected long-term visual field deficit and associated costs. Use of a fixed travoprost/timolol solution may lead to less long-term visual field deficit progression and lower annual medical care costs than a fixed latanoprost/timolol solution. DISCUSSION: The use of clinical trial data may limit the applicability of these findings. However, this analysis of direct medical costs only is likely a conservative estimate of the costs associated with visual field deficits.