A Cost-effectiveness comparison of bimatoprost versus latanoprost in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension

To compare the cost-effectiveness of bimatoprost versus latanoprost for the treatment of glaucoma and ocular hypertension, a cost-effectiveness algorithm was developed to estimate the annual costs and cost per treatment success (cost-effectiveness) for bimatoprost 0.03% QD compared with latanoprost...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Survey of ophthalmology 2004-03, Vol.49 (2), p.S36-S44
Main Authors: Walt, John G., Lee, Jeffrey T.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Algorithms
Amides
Antihypertensive Agents - economics
Bimatoprost
Cloprostenol - analogs & derivatives
Cost-Benefit Analysis
cost-effectiveness
Drug Costs
Economics, Pharmaceutical
Glaucoma, Open-Angle - economics
Health Care Costs
health economics
Humans
Intraocular Pressure - drug effects
latanopost
Lipids - economics
Ocular Hypertension - economics
pharmacoeconomics
Prostaglandins F, Synthetic - economics
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:To compare the cost-effectiveness of bimatoprost versus latanoprost for the treatment of glaucoma and ocular hypertension, a cost-effectiveness algorithm was developed to estimate the annual costs and cost per treatment success (cost-effectiveness) for bimatoprost 0.03% QD compared with latanoprost 0.005% QD. Medication costs for the model were abstracted from published sources. Clinical assumptions for the model were based on the treatment success rates from one 3-month controlled clinical trial comparing bimatoprost versus latanoprost (n =119 and 113, respectively), and another 6-month controlled clinical trial comparing bimatoprost versus latanoprost (n=133 and 136, respectively). Treatment success was defined as the percentage of patients achieving various target intraocular pressures. A larger percentage of patients achieved low target IOPs on bimatoprost than on latanoprost. The cost per treatment success for patients who started treatment on bimatoprost monotherapy was less than for patients started on latanoprost, despite the fact that the estimated yearly costs were similar for these drugs. In this model bimatoprost was found to be more cost-effective than latanoprost, given the average wholesale price of these medications and the assumptions of the cost-effectiveness algorithm about clinical success at the 3- and 6-month decision points.
ISSN:0039-6257
1879-3304
DOI:10.1016/j.survophthal.2003.12.018