Patient Preference-Based Comparative Effectiveness and Cost-Utility Analysis of the Prostamides for Open-Angle Glaucoma.

PURPOSE: To perform patient preference-based comparative effectiveness and cost-utility (cost-effectiveness) analyses to evaluate topical bimatoprost 0.01%, latanoprost 0.005%, travoprost 0.004%, tafluprost 0.0015%, and timolol 0.5% for the treatment of open-angle glaucoma (OAG). METHODS: Value-Based Medicine®, incremental cost-utility analysis, and average cost-utility analysis were performed using published systematic review and network meta-analyses with 3-month clinical data for a base case of OAG with an untreated intraocular pressure of 26 mm Hg. Visual acuity and visual field changes were converted to time tradeoff utility format. A 20-year model was undertaken; bilateral therapy was presumed; a national average Medicare Fee Schedule was used; and ophthalmic, third party insurer, and societal cost perspectives were utilized. Patient value outcomes (QALYs or quality-adjusted life-years) and costs were discounted at 3% annually. RESULTS: Bimatoprost conferred a mean 2.56 QALY gain (22.9% patient quality-of-life gain) for the average OAG patient, while latanoprost for the average OAG patient, while latanoprost conferred a 2.00 QALY gain (17.8% quality-of-life gain), tafluprost a 1.99 QALY gain (17.9% quality-of-life gain), travoprost a l.92 QALY gain (17.2% quality-of-life gain), and timolol a 1.42 QALY gain (12.8% quality-of-life gain). The ophthalmic cost-perspective, incremental cost-utility ratio of bimatoprost referent to travoprost was $6,034/QALY, to latanoprost was $27,973/QALY, and to timolol was $16,063/QALY. Bimatoprost dominated tafluprost, meaning that it conferred greater patient value for lesser cost than tafluprost. CONCLUSIONS: Topical bimatoprost delivers greater patient value than the other prostamides and topical timolol for the treatment of OAG. Bimatoprost is incrementally cost-effective referent to the other prostamides and timolol.

A Worldwide Price Comparison of Glaucoma Medications, Laser Trabeculoplasty, and Trabeculectomy Surgery.

Importance: Medical and surgical interventions for glaucoma are effective only if they are affordable to patients. Little is known about how affordable glaucoma interventions are in developing and developed countries. Objective: To compare the prices of topical glaucoma medications, laser trabeculoplasty, and trabeculectomy relative with median annual household income (MA-HHI) for countries worldwide. Design, Setting and Participants: Cross-sectional observational study. For each country, we obtained prices for glaucoma medications, laser trabeculoplasty, and trabeculectomy using government pricing data, drug databases, physician fee schedules, academic publications, and communications with local ophthalmologists. Prices were adjusted for purchasing power parity and inflation to 2016 US dollars, and annual therapy prices were examined relative to the MA-HHI. Interventions costing less than 2.5% of the MA-HHI were considered affordable. Main Outcomes and Measures: Daily cost for topical glaucoma medications, cost of annual therapy with glaucoma medications, laser trabeculoplasty, and trabeculectomy relative to MA-HHI in each country. Results: Data were obtained from 38 countries, including 17 developed countries and 21 developing countries, as classified by the World Economic Outlook. We observed considerable variability in intervention prices compared with MA-HHI across the countries and across interventions, ranging from 0.1% to 5% of MA-HHI for timolol, 0.1% to 27% for latanoprost, 0.2% to 17% for laser trabeculoplasty, and 0.3% to 42% for trabeculectomy. Timolol was the most affordable medication in all countries studied and was 2.5% or more of MA-HHI in only 2 countries (5%). The annual cost of latanoprost was 2.5% or more of MA-HHI in 15 countries (41%) (15 developing countries [75%] and no developed countries). The cost of laser trabeculoplasty was 2.5% or more of the MA-HHI in 15 countries (44%) (11 developing countries [65%] and 4 developed countries [24%]). The cost of trabeculectomy was 2.5% or more of the MA-HHI in 28 countries (78%) (18 developing countries [95%] and 10 developed countries [59%]). In 18 countries (53%), laser trabeculoplasty cost less than a 3-year latanoprost supply. Conclusions and Relevance: For many patients worldwide, the costs of medical, laser, and incisional surgical interventions were 2.5% or more of the MA-HHI. Successfully reducing global blindness from glaucoma requires addressing multiple contributing factors, including making glaucoma interventions more affordable.

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.

Drug use in primary open angle glaucoma: a prospective study at a tertiary care teaching hospital.

OBJECTIVE: To study drug use pattern in patients of primary open angle glaucoma (POAG) and to analyze the cost of different anti-glaucoma medications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective study was carried in the glaucoma clinic of a tertiary care teaching hospital over a period of 9 months. The data collected for patients with POAG included the patient's demographic details and the drugs prescribed. Data were analyzed for drug use pattern and cost drugs used. RESULTS: In a total 180 prescriptions (297 drugs) analyzed, most drugs (83.83%) were prescribed by topical route as eye drops. ß blockers (93.88%) were found to be the most frequently prescribed for POAG. Timolol (82.22%) was the most frequently prescribed drug and timolol with acetazolamide (17.22%) was the most commonly prescribed drug combination. Fixed dose combinations constituted 26.66% of prescriptions. ß blockers were found to be cheaper than other anti-glaucoma drugs while prostaglandins analogs were the costliest. Instructions about the route, frequency and duration of treatment were present in all prescriptions. However, instructions regarding instillation of eye drops were missing in all prescriptions.

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).

The long-term outcomes of four alternative treatment strategies for primary open-angle glaucoma.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the long-term effects and costs of four treatment strategies for primary open-angle glaucoma compared to usual care. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analyses with a lifelong horizon were made from a societal perspective. Data were generated with a patient-level model based on discrete event simulation. The model structure and parameter estimates were based on literature, particularly clinical studies on the natural course of glaucoma and the effect of treatment. We simulated heterogeneous cohorts of 3000 patients and explored the impact of uncertainty with sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of initial treatment with a prostaglandin analogue compared with a ß-blocker was €12.931 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. A low initial target pressure (15 mmHg) resulted in 0.115 QALYs gained and €1550 saved compared to a gradual decrease from 21 to 15 mmHg upon progression. Visual field (VF) measurements every 6 rather than 12 months lead to health gains at increased costs (ICER €173,486 per QALY gained), whereas measurements every 24 months lead to health losses at reduced costs (ICER €21,516 per QALY lost). All treatment strategies were dominant over 'withholding treatment'. CONCLUSIONS: From a cost-effectiveness point of view, it seems advantageous to aim for a low intraocular pressure in all glaucoma patients. The feasibility of this strategy should therefore be investigated. Additionally, the cost-effectiveness outcomes of initiating monotherapy with a prostaglandin analogue and reducing the frequency of VF testing may be acceptable.

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.

Latanoprost versus timolol as first choice therapy in patients with ocular hypertension. A cost-effectiveness analysis.

PURPOSE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of ocular hypertension (OH) treatment initiated with latanoprost compared to timolol. METHODS: Two strategies for OH therapy are modelled, (1) 'starting with timolol' and (2) 'starting with latanoprost'. Therapy can be maintained or changed dependent on the achieved intraocular pressure (IOP) and side-effects. Adjustments of therapy to reach a target pressure involve monotherapy, combination therapy and laser. Four drugs are used: latanoprost, timolol, brimonidine and dorzolamide. Once the adjustments of therapy are completed, lifelong follow-up with IOP-dependent conversion to glaucoma and progression to blindness are modelled. Direct medical costs are assigned. The IOP-lowering effect of drugs is based on meta-analyses and applied by Monte Carlo simulation to a hypothetical cohort of patients with OH. The characteristics of the cohort, including the initial IOP distribution, are based on data of 1000 patients. RESULTS: The IOP decreased from 25,4 mm Hg (mean) to 16.7 (±0.017) mm Hg (strategy 1) and to 16.5 (±0.013) mm Hg (strategy 2). Costs per patient within 15 months of therapy were € 367 and € 469, respectively. Lifetime blindness and costs were 0.0334 years and € 3,514 (strategy 1) and 0.0318 years and € 4,397 (strategy 2). Incremental costs per year of vision saved for strategy (2) in comparison with strategy (1) amount to, given the uncertainties in the model, approximately € 537,000. CONCLUSION: For saving 1 year of vision, high costs are needed when OH therapy is initiated with latanoprost compared to timolol, when the cost price of latanoprost remains high.

Balancing efficacy and tolerability of prostaglandin analogues and prostaglandin-timolol fixed combinations in primary open-angle glaucoma.

BACKGROUND: Lowering intraocular pressure (IOP) is currently the only therapeutic approach that preserves visual function in primary open-angle glaucoma. In making treatment decisions for first- and second-line therapy, the clinician needs to provide an appropriate balance of efficacy and tolerability. Prostaglandin analogues (PGAs) are frequently used as first-line monotherapy, because of their efficacy and low risk of systemic side effects. Similarly, PGA-based fixed combinations are frequently used in patients who progress or fail to achieve the target IOP. SCOPE: We have reviewed the literature on the management of primary open-angle glaucoma with PGAs, both as monotherapies and in fixed combinations. FINDINGS: In the clinical trial and meta-analysis data identified, bimatoprost 0.03% seems to be associated with a greater overall ability to lower IOP compared with latanoprost, travoprost or tafluprost, at the cost of a slightly higher incidence of conjunctival hyperaemia. Studies indicate that patients' adherence to treatment is generally better with PGAs than with many other monotherapies. In patients requiring more than one IOP-lowering agent, fixed combination treatments may provide improved adherence and tolerability benefits compared with concomitant use of individual treatments. Bimatoprost/timolol fixed combination appears to be slightly more efficacious than latanoprost/timolol or travoprost/timolol, and tolerability differences between the fixed combinations appear to be slight, probably because the addition of timolol to the PGA component lessens the associated hyperaemia. Surveys on EU physician attitudes appear largely in line with these clinical data. CONCLUSION: An appropriate balance between efficacy and tolerability ensures optimum IOP lowering and reduces the risk of non-adherence. PGAs largely fulfil this need as monotherapies and as components of combinations.

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.

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.

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-effectiveness of latanoprost and timolol maleate for the treatment of glaucoma in Scandinavia and the United Kingdom, using a decision-analytic health economic model.

PURPOSE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of latanoprost or timolol in glaucoma treatment in Norway, Sweden, Denmark (Scandinavia) and the United Kingdom (UK). METHODS: A Markov model was constructed to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis. Health states were 'stable' and 'progressed' glaucoma, and transition probabilities for both primary open-angle and exfoliation glaucoma were derived from the medical literature. Practice patterns were obtained from surveys completed by 54 ophthalmologists geographically dispersed throughout each country. Country specific unit costs were used for medications, patient visits, diagnostics, and therapeutic procedures. RESULTS: Over the life of the model latanoprost was less expensive than timolol by 5.3-7.6% (Scandinavia) and 2.1% (UK). Following adjustments, therapy in the original timolol-treated cohort was slightly more effective in each country with a difference in 0.003-0.015 years to progression of glaucoma existing between latanoprost. This may have resulted from the model design, which reflected that physicians ultimately control most patients' glaucoma over 5 years by adding or changing therapy. The associated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for latanoprost vs timolol generated by the Scandinavian and the UK models, respectively, were: Norway 351,396 NOK; Sweden 988,985 SEK; Denmark 351,641; and the UK 4751 GBP. CONCLUSIONS: Over 5 years, in the UK timolol is the cost-effective option, whereas in Scandinavia latanoprost may be the cost-effective alternative to timolol.

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.

[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.

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.

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.