Assessment of the cost effectiveness of travoprost versus latanoprost as single agents for treatment of glaucoma in France

Clinical Drug Investigation

Volumn 28, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 183-198

  Payet, Stéphanie ^a   Denis, Philippe ^b   Berdeaux, Gilles ^c,d   Launois, Robert ^a  

^a Réseau d Evaluation en Economie de la Sante REES   (France)

^b EDOUARD HERRIOT HOSPITAL   (France)

^c Alcon France   (France)

^d University of Paris Cité   (France)

Author keywords

Antiglaucomas, therapeutic use; Cost effectiveness; Glaucoma; Latanoprost, therapeutic use; Prostaglandins, therapeutic use; Travoprost, therapeutic use

Indexed keywords

LATANOPROST; PROSTAGLANDIN DERIVATIVE; TRAVOPROST;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DRUG EFFICACY; FEMALE; FRANCE; GLAUCOMA; HUMAN; INTRAOCULAR HYPERTENSION; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; LOW LEVEL LASER THERAPY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OPEN ANGLE GLAUCOMA; PRESCRIPTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; VISUAL IMPAIRMENT;

EID: 39049086731     PISSN: 11732563     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2165/00044011-200828030-00005     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Quigley HA. Number of people with glaucoma worldwide. Br J Ophthalmol 1996; 80: 389-93
2. Quigley HA, Broman AT. The number of people with glaucoma worldwide in 2010 and 2020. Br J Ophthalmol 2006; 90: 262-7
3. de Voogd S, Ikram MK, Wolfs RC, et al. Incidence of open-angle glaucoma in a general elderly population: the Rotterdam Study. Ophthalmology 2005; 112: 1487-93
4. Mitchell P, Smith W, Attebo K, et al. Prevalence of open-angle glaucoma in Australia: the Blue Mountains Eye Study. Ophthalmology 1996; 103: 1661-9
5. Klein BEK, Klein R, Sponsel WE, et al. Prevalence of glaucoma: the Beaver Dam Eye Study. Ophthalmology 1992; 99: 1499-504
6. Friedman DS, Wolfs RC, O'Colmain BJ, et al. on behalf of the Eye Diseases Prevalence Research Group. Prevalence of open-angle glaucoma among adults in the United States. Arch Ophthalmol 2004; 122: 532-8
7. Varma R, Ying-Lai M, Francis BA, et al. on behalf of the Los Angeles Latino Eye Study Group. Prevalence of open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension in Latinos: the Los Angeles Latino Eye Study. Ophthalmology 2004; 111: 1439-48
8. Leske MC, Connell AM, Wu SY, et al. on behalf of the Barbados Eye Studies Group. Incidence of open-angle glaucoma: the Barbados Eye Studies. Arch Ophthalmol 2001; 119: 89-95
9. Quigley HA, Vitale S. Models of open-angle glaucoma prevalence and incidence in the United States. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1997; 38: 83-91
10. 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
11. Hennis A, Wu SY, Nemesure B, et al. on behalf of the Barbados Eye Studies Group. Hypertension, diabetes, and longitudinal changes in intraocular pressure. Ophthalmology 2003; 110: 908-14
12. Dielemans I, de Jong PT, Stolk R, et al. Primary open-angle glaucoma, intraocular pressure, and diabetes mellitus in the general elderly population: the Rotterdam Study. Ophthalmology 1996; 103: 1271-5
13. Hulsman CA, Houwing-Duistermaat JJ, Van Duijn CM, et al. Family score as an indicator of genetic risk of primary open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 2002; 120: 1726-31
14. Racette L, Wilson MR, Zangwill LM, et al. Primary open-angle glaucoma in blacks: a review. Surv Ophthalmol 2003; 48: 295-313
15. Gordon MO, Beiser JA, Brandt JD, et al. The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study: baseline factors that predict the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 2002; 120: 714-20, discussion 829-30
16. Weinstein MC. The costs of prevention. J Gen Intern Med 1990; 5 (5 Suppl.): S89-92
17. Coyle A, Drummond M. The economic burden of glaucoma in the UK: the need for a farsighted policy. Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 7: 484-9
18. Oostenbrink JB, Rutten-van Molken MP, Sluyter-Opdenoordt TS. Resource use and costs of patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension: a one-year study based on retrospective chart review in the Netherlands. J Glaucoma 2001; 10: 184-91
19. Denis P, Lafuma A, Berdeaux G. Medical predictive factors of glaucoma treatment costs. J Glaucoma 2004; 13: 283-90
20. Calissendorff BM. Costs of medical and surgical treatment of glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 2001; 79: 286-8
21. Denis P, Lafuma A, Berdeaux G. Medical outcome of glaucoma therapy from a nationwide representative survey. Clin Drug Investig 2004; 24: 343-52
22. European Medicines Agency (EMEA) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.emea.eu.int/humandocs/Humans/EPAR/ [Accessed 2007 Jun 1]
23. Holló G. The side effects of the prostaglandin analogues. Expert Opin Drug Saf 2007; 61 (1): 45-52
24. Enquête permanente de la prescription médicale. Puteaux, France: IMS Health
25. Netland PA, Landry T, Sullivan EK, et al. Travoprost compared with latanoprost and timolol in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Am J Ophthalmol 2001; 132: 472-84
26. Dubiner HB, Sircy MD, Landry T, et al. Comparison of the diurnal ocular hypotensive efficacy of travoprost and latanoprost over a 44-hour period in patients with elevated intraocular pressure. Clin Ther 2004; 26: 84-91
27. Garcia-Feijoo J, Martinez-de-la-Casa JM, Castillo A, et al. Circadian IOP-lowering efficacy of travoprost 0.004% ophthalmic solution compared to latanoprost 0.005%. Curr Med Res Opin 2006; 22: 1689-97
28. Hepsen IF, Ozkaya E. 24-h IOP control with latanoprost, travoprost, and bimatoprost in subjects with exfoliation syndrome and ocular hypertension. Eye 2007; 21: 453-8
29. Nordmann JP, LePen C, Lilliu H, et al. Estimating the long-term visual field consequences of average daily intra-ocular pressure and variance: a clinical trial comparing timolol, latanoprost and travoprost. Clin Drug Invest 2003; 23: 431-8
30. Rouland JF, Berdeaux G, Lafuma A. The economic burden of glaucoma and ocular hypertension: implications for patient management. A review. Drugs Aging 2005; 22: 315-21
31. Wilensky J, Fiscella RG, Carlson AM, et al. Measurement of persistence and adherence to regimens of IOP-lowering glaucoma medications using pharmacy claims data. Am J Ophthalmol 2006; 141 (1 Suppl.): S28-33
32. Przydryga JT, Egloff C, for the Swiss Start Study Group. Intraocular pressure lowering efficacy of travoprost. Eur J Ophthalmol 2004; 14: 416-22
33. Franks WA, Renard JP, Cunliffe IA, et al. A 6-week, double-masked, parallel-group study of the efficacy and safety of travoprost 0.004% compared with latanoprost 0:005%/timolol 0.5% in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Clin Ther 2006; 28: 332-9
34. Orzalesi N, Rossetti L, Bottoli A, et al. Comparison of the effects of latanoprost, travoprost, and bimatoprost on circadian intraocular pressure in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Ophthalmology 2006; 113: 239-46
35. 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. Am J Ophthalmol 2003; 135: 688-703
36. Denis PH, Lafuma A, Khoshnood B, et al. Comparison of prostaglandin topical treatments for glaucoma in monotherapy: a meta-analysis of published randomized trials. Curr Med Res Opin 2007; 23 (3): 601-8
37. Vass C, Hirn C, Sycha T, et al. Medical interventions for primary open angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007; (4): CD003167
38. LePen C, Ligier M, Berdeaux G. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis of travoprost versus latanoprost versus timolol in the treatment of advanced glaucoma in 5 European countries: Austria, France, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. J Med Econ 2005; 8: 67-84
39. Halpern HT, Covert D, Robin AL. Projected impact of travoprost versus both timolol and latanoprost on visual field deficit progression and costs among Black glaucoma subjects. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 2002; 100: 109-17
40. Hjelmgren J, Berggren F, Andersson D. Health economics guidelines: similarities, differences and some implications. Value Health 2001; 4: 225-50
41. Denis PH, Launois R, Devaux M, et al. Comparison of diurnal IOP control by latanoprost versus travoprost: results of an observational survey. Clin Drug Invest 2006; 26 (12): 703-14
42. Data on file. United-Kingdom Research Data Base. Extraction performed on glaucoma treatment in February 2006
43. Nordmann JP, Lafuma A, Pradet S, et al. Clinical outcomes of glaucoma treatments over a patient lifetime: a Markov model. J Glaucoma 2005; 14: 463-9
44. Billotte C, Berdeaux G. Adverse clinical consequences of posterior capsular opacification treatment by Nd-Yag laser. J Cataract Refract Surg 2004; 30: 2064-71
45. Vidal. Ed du Vidal. Paris: Vidal, 2001
46. Nomenclature générale des actes professionnels. Nomenclatures des actes professionnels. Paris: Union des Caisses Nationales de Sécurité Sociale, 2000
47. Echelle nationale 2000 des coûts par GHM (Groupe Homogène de Malades). Paris: Ministère de l'emploi et de la solidarité, 2000
48. Les grands indicateurs. INSEE (Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.insee.fr/fr/ indicateur/achatfranc.htm [Accessed 2007 1 Jun ]
49. Denis P, Covert D, Realini A. Travoprost in the management of open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Clin Ophthalmol 2007; 1 (1): 11-24
50. Denis P, LePen C, Umuhire D, et al. Treatment carry-over impacts on effectiveness of intra-ocular pressure lowering agents, estimated by a discrete event simulation model. Eur J Ophthalmol 2008; 18: 44-51
51. Dunn D, Babiker A, Hooker M, et al. The dangers of inferring treatment effects from observational data: a case study in HIV infection. Control Clin Trials 2002; 23 (2): 106-10
52. Abel U, Koch A. The role of randomization in clinical studies: myths and beliefs. J Clin Epidemiol 1999; 52 (6): 487-97
53. Concato J, Shah N, Horwitz RI. Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. N Engl J Med 2000; 342 (25): 1887-92
54. Deeks JJ, Dinnes J, D'Amico R, et al. Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies. Health Technol Assess 2003; 7 (27): iii-x, 1-173
55. Heckman JJ, Smith JA. Assessing the case for social experiments. J Econ Perspect. 1995; 9 (2): 85-110
56. Covert D, Robin AL. Adjunctive glaucoma therapy use associated with travoprost, bimatoprost and latanoprost. Curr Med Res Opin 2006; 22 (5): 971-6
57. Rait JL, Adena MA. Persistency rates for prostaglandin and other hypotensive eyedrops: population-based study using pharmacy claims data. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol 2007; 35 (7): 602-11
58. Reardon G, Schwartz GF, Mozaffari E. Patient persistency with ocular prostaglandin therapy: a population based, retrospective study. Clin Ther 2003; 25 (4): 1172-85
59. Friedman DS, Quigley HA, Gelb A, et al. Using pharmacy claims data to study adherence to glaucoma medications: methodology and findings of the Glaucoma Adherence and Persistency Study (GAPS). Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2007; 48 (11): 5052-7
60. Quigley HA, Friedman DS, Hahn SR. Evaluation of practice patterns for care of open-angle glaucoma compared with claims data: the Glaucoma Adherence and Persistency Study. Ophthalmology 2007; 114 (9): 1599-606
61. Rawlins MD. NICE and the public health. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2004; 58 (6): 575-80
62. Baudouin C, Rouland JF, Nordmann JP, et al. Efficacy of first- or second-line latanoprost on intraocular pressure and ocular symptoms in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. J Fr Ophtalmol 2006; 29: 615-24