کد مقاله | کد نشریه | سال انتشار | مقاله انگلیسی | نسخه تمام متن |
---|---|---|---|---|
4005999 | 1602238 | 2006 | 7 صفحه PDF | دانلود رایگان |
PurposeCost-effectiveness evaluation of monotherapy with the newer lipid class of intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering medications in glaucoma and ocular hypertension.DesignRetrospective pharmacoeconomic analysis.MethodsAnalysis included all published studies measuring IOP reduction from untreated baseline with once-daily bimatoprost (Lumigan), latanoprost (Xalatan), or travoprost (Travatan) monotherapy in patients with elevated IOP. Percentage IOP reduction at the final study visit was calculated using the early morning IOP measurement to control for diurnal variation in IOP. Patient-weighted average percentage IOP reductions were computed for each medication. Cost per 2.5-ml bottle was determined using PriceAlert 2005 (February). Cost-effectiveness was defined as monthly cost of medication per patient-weighted average 1% reduction in IOP.ResultsStudies included 951 bimatoprost, 1598 latanoprost, and 765 travoprost patients. The AWP in February, 2005 for a 2.5-ml bottle was $62.10 for bimatoprost, $61.29 for latanoprost, and $62.19 for travoprost. Patient-weighted average IOP reduction was 32.4% for bimatoprost, 29.6% for latanoprost, and 29.0% for travoprost. Calculated cost-effectiveness was $1.92 for bimatoprost, $2.07 for latanoprost, and $2.14 for travoprost. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) analysis showed an incremental cost of $0.29 for each additional 1% IOP reduction provided by bimatoprost over latanoprost. The rank order of the cost-effectiveness of the drugs (bimatoprost > latanoprost > travoprost) was robust in sensitivity analyses to cost and efficacy.ConclusionsOn the basis of AWP and patient-weighted average percentage IOP reduction in published studies, bimatoprost had the most favorable cost-effectiveness among the drugs compared. Cost-effectiveness should be considered along with traditional clinical safety and efficacy measures to make individual and group healthcare decisions.
Journal: American Journal of Ophthalmology - Volume 141, Issue 1, Supplement, January 2006, Pages 15–21