The cost-effectiveness of bimatoprost 0.03% in the treatment of glaucoma in adult patients - A European perspective

International Journal of Clinical Practice

Volumn 59, Issue 9, 2005, Pages 1011-1016

  Tuil, E ^a   Hommer, A B ^b   Poulsen, Peter Bo ^c   Christensen, T L ^c   Buchholz, P ^d   Walt, J ^e   Holmstrom, S ^f  

^a CENTRE HOSPITALIER NATIONAL D OPHTALMOLOGIE DES QUINZE VINGTS   (France)

^b Krankenanstalt Sanatorium Hera   (Austria)

^c MUUSMANN Research and Consulting   (Denmark)

^d ALLERGAN PLC   (United States)

^e ALLERGAN INC   (United States)

^f Allergan France SAS   (France)

Author keywords

Bimatoprost; Cost effectiveness; Europe; Glaucoma; Latanoprost

Indexed keywords

BETA ADRENERGIC RECEPTOR BLOCKING AGENT; BIMATOPROST; BRINZOLAMIDE; LATANOPROST; AMIDE; ANTIHYPERTENSIVE AGENT; EYE DROPS; LIPID; PROSTAGLANDIN F;

ARTICLE; AUSTRIA; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DRUG COST; EUROPE; FINLAND; FOLLOW UP; FRANCE; GLAUCOMA; HUMAN; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MONOTHERAPY; MULTICENTER STUDY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; UNSPECIFIED SIDE EFFECT; ADJUVANT CHEMOTHERAPY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; STATISTICAL MODEL;

AMIDES; ANTIHYPERTENSIVE AGENTS; AUSTRIA; CHEMOTHERAPY, ADJUVANT; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DRUG COSTS; FINLAND; FRANCE; GLAUCOMA; HUMANS; LIPIDS; MODELS, ECONOMIC; OPHTHALMIC SOLUTIONS; PROSTAGLANDINS F, SYNTHETIC; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS;

EID: 27944504883     PISSN: 13685031     EISSN: 17421241     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1742-1241.2005.00616.x     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Buch H, Vinding T, La Cour M et al. The prevalence and causes of bilateral and unilateral blindness in an elderly urban Danish population. The Copenhagen City Eye Study. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 2001; 79: 441-49.
2. Klaver CC, Wolfs RC, Vingerling JR et al. Age-specific prevalence and causes of blindness and visual impairment in an older population: The Rotterdam Study. Arch Ophthalmol 1998; 116: 653-58.
3. The AGIS Investigators. The Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study (AGIS): 7. The relationship between control of intraocular pressure and visual field deterioration. Am J Ophthalmol 2000; 130: 429-40.
4. Shirakashi M, Iwata K, Sawaguchi S et al. Intraocular pressure-dependent progression of visual field loss in advanced primary open-angle glaucoma: A 15-year follow-up. Ophthalmologica 1993; 207: 1-5.
5. European Glaucoma Society. Terminology and Guidelines for Glaucoma, 2nd edn. Savona, Italy: Editrice Dogma, 2003.
6. Rouland JF, HågåA, Bengtsson S et al. What triggers change of therapy? In: Jönsson B, Krieglstein G, eds. Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma. Differences in International Treatment Patterns and Costs. Oxford: Isis Medical Media Ltd, 1999: 162-68.
7. Kobelt G, Jonsson L. Modeling cost of treatment with new topical treatments for glaucoma. Results from France and the United Kingdom. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1999; 15: 207-19.
8. Noecker RS, Dirks MS, Cholin NT et al. A six-month randomized clinical trial comparing the IOP-lowering efficacy of bimatoprost and latanoprost in patients with ocular hypertension or glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 2003; 135: 55-63.
9. Oral presentation at the 14th Congress of the European Society of Ophthalmology, Madrid, Spain, 2003.
10. Walt JG, Lee TL. A cost-effectiveness comparison of bimatoprost versus latanoprost in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Surv Ophthalmol 2004; 49 (Suppl. 1): S36-44.
11. Buxton MJ, Drummond MF, Van Hout BA et al. Modelling in economic evaluation: An unavoidable fact of life. Health Economics 1997; 6: 217-27.
12. Keeler K. Decision trees and Markov models in cost-effectiveness research. In: Sloan FA, ed. Valuing Health Care. Cambrigde: Cambrigde University Press, 1995: 185-205.
13. Kobelt G, Jonsson L, Gerdtham U, Krieglstein GK. Direct costs of glaucoma management following initiation of medical therapy. A simulation model based on an observational study of glaucoma treatment in Germany. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 1998; 236: 811-21.
14. Marchetti A, Magar R, An P, Nichol M. Clinical and economic impact of new trends in glaucoma treatment. MedGenMed 2001; 3: 6.
15. DuBiner H, Cooke D, Dirks M et al. Efficacy and safety of bimatoprost in patients with elevated IOP: A 30-day comparison with latanopost. Surv Ophthalmol 2001; 45 (Suppl. 4): S353-60.
16. Gandolfi S, Simmons S, Sturm R et al. Three-months comparison of bimatoprost and latanoprost in patients with glaucoma and ocular hypertension. The Bimatoprost Study Group 3. Adv Ther 2001; 18: 110-21.
17. Higginbotham EJ, Schuman JS, Goldberg I et al. One-year, randomized study comparing bimatoprost and timolol in glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Arch Ophthalmol 2002; 120: 1286-93.
18. Agro KD, Bradley CA, Mittmann N, Iskedjian M, Ilersich AL, Einarson TR. Sensitivity analysis in health economic and pharmacoeconomic studies. An appraisal of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics 1997; 11: 75-88.
19. Briggs AH, Gray A. Handling uncertainty in economic evaluations of healthcare interventions. Health Technol Assess 1999; 3: 1-134.
20. Briggs AH, Schulper M. Sensitivity analysis in economic evaluation: A review of published studies. Health Economics 1995; 4: 355-71.
21. Jacobs P, Fassbender K. The measurement of indirect costs in the health economics evaluation literature. A review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1998; 14: 799-808.
22. Taylor TN, Chrischilles EA. Economic evaluations of interventions in endocrinology. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am 1997; 26: 67-87.
23. Larsen RJ, Asmussen M, Christensen T, Olsen J, Poulsen PB, Sørensen J. Economic evaluations in international health technology assessments - a study of methodologies. Danish Health Technol Assess 2003; 5: 1-93.