Cost considerations in the medical management of glaucoma in the US: Estimated yearly costs and cost effectiveness of bimatoprost compared with other medications

PharmacoEconomics

Volumn 24, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 251-264

  Goldberg, Lawrence D ^a   Walt, John ^b  

^a MD and Associates   (United States)

^b ALLERGAN INC   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIMATOPROST; BRIMONIDINE; DORZOLAMIDE PLUS TIMOLOL; LATANOPROST; TIMOLOL; TIMOLOL MALEATE; TRAVOPROST;

ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DRUG COST; DRUG EFFICACY; GLAUCOMA; HEALTH CARE COST; HUMAN; INTRAOCULAR HYPERTENSION; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; MODEL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; UNITED STATES;

ADRENERGIC BETA-ANTAGONISTS; AMIDES; ANTIHYPERTENSIVE AGENTS; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; GLAUCOMA; HUMANS; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; LIPIDS; PROSTAGLANDINS F, SYNTHETIC; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS; TIMOLOL; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UNITED STATES;

EID: 33644849928     PISSN: 11707690     EISSN: 11707690     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2165/00019053-200624030-00005     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Brandt JD, VanDenburgh AM, Chen K, et al. Comparison of once- or twice-daily bimatoprost with twice-daily timolol in patients with elevated IOP: a 3-month clinical trial. The Bimatoprost Study Group 1. Ophthalmology 2001; 108: 1023-31
2. Sherwood M, Brandt J, et al. Six-month comparison of bimatoprost once-daily and twice-daily with timolol twice-daily in patients with elevated IOP: Bimatoprost Study Groups 1 and 2. Surv Ophthalmol 2001; 45 Suppl. 4: S361-8
3. Gandolfi S, Simmons ST, Sturm R, et al. Three-month comparison of bimatoprost and latanoprost in patients with glaucoma and ocular hypertension: the Bimatoprost Study Group 3. Adv Ther 2001; 18: 110-21
4. Higginbotham EJ, Schuman JS, Goldberg I, et al. One-year, randomized study comparing bimatoprost and timolol in glaucoma and ocular hypertension: the Bimatoprost Study Groups 1 and 2. Arch Ophthalmol 2002 Oct; 120: 1286-93
5. Noecker RS, Dirks MS, Choplin NT, et al. A six-month randomized clinical trial comparing the intraocular pressure-lowering efficacy of bimatoprost and latanoprost in patients with ocular hypertension or glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 2003; 135: 55-63
6. Coleman A, Lerner F, Bernstein P, et al. A 3-month randomized controlled trial of bimatoprost (Lumigan®) versus combined timolol and dorzolamide (Cosopt®) in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension: the Lumigan®/Cosopt ®Study Group. Ophthalmology 2003; 110: 2362-8
7. 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
8. Singh K, Spaeth G, Zimmerman T, et al. Target pressure: glaucomatologists' holey grail. Ophthalmology 2000; 107 (4): 629-30
9. Zeyen T. Target pressures in glaucoma. Bull Soc Belge Ophthalmol 1999; 274: 61-5
10. Lichter PR, Musch DC, Gillespie BW, et al. Interim clinical outcomes in the Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study comparing initial treatment randomized to medications or surgery. Ophthalmology 2001; 108: 1943-53
11. Heijl A, Leske MC, Bengtsson B, et al. Reduction of intraocular pressure and glaucoma progression: results from the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial. The Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial Group. Arch Ophthalmol 2002; 120: 1268-79
12. 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
13. Doubilet P, Abrams HL. The cost of underutilization: percutaneous transluminal angioplasty for peripheral vascular disease. N Engl J Med 1984; 310: 95-102
14. Parrish RK, Palmberg P, Sheu WP, et al. A comparison of latanoprost, bimatoprost, and travoprost in patients with elevated intraocular pressure: a 12-week, randomized, masked-evaluator multicenter study. XLT Study Group. Am J Ophthalmol 2003; 135: 688-703
15. Rittenhouse B. Uses of models in economic evaluations of medicines and other health technologies. London: Office of Health Economics, 1996
16. American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO). Preferred Practice Pattern™. Primary open-angle glaucoma. San Francisco (CA): AAO, 2000
17. Physicians fee and coding guide. Augusta (GA): MAG Mutual HealthCare Solutions Inc., 2003
18. Serle J, Cantor L, Gross R, et al. Best practice treatment algorithm for primary open-angle glaucoma: implications for US ophthalmology practice. Manag Care Interface 2002; 15: 37-48
19. Data on file, Verispan Market Research Data, 2006
20. Price alert. Indianapolis (IN): Wolters Kluwer Health, 2003
21. Coleman AL, Baerveldt G, Bournias TE, et al. Evidence-based management of glaucoma: recommendations of an expert panel. In: Glaucoma disease management guide. Montvale (NJ): Thomson PDR, 2003: 201-15
22. Tuil E, Hommer AB, Poulsen PB, et al. The cost-effectiveness of bimatoprost 0.03% in the treatment of glaucoma in adult patients: a European perspective. Int J Clin Pract 2005; 59: 1011-6
23. Walt JG, Lee JT. A cost-effectiveness comparison of bimatoprost versus latanoprost in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Surv Ophthalmol 2004; 49 Suppl. 1: S36-44
24. Mick AB, Gonzalez S, Dunbar MT, et al. A cost analysis of the prostaglandin analogs. Optometry 2002; 73: 614-9
25. Day DG, Schacknow PN, Sharpe ED, et al. A persistency and economic analysis of latanoprost, bimatoprost, or beta-blockers in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther 2004; 20: 383-92
26. Fiscella R, Stewart WC. Patient persistency with glaucoma therapy [letter]. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther 2005; 21: 349-50
27. Rouland JF, Le Pen C, Benhaddi H, et al. Naturalistic, prospective study of glaucoma and ocular hypertension treatment in France: strategies, clinical outcomes, and costs at 2 years. Eur Ophthalmol 2005; 15: 562-80
28. Kobelt-Nguyen G, Gerdtham UG, Alm A. Costs of treating primary open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension: a retrospective, observational two-year chart review of newly diagnosed patients in Sweden and the United States. J Glaucoma 1998; 7: 95-104