Treatment of glaucoma in clinical practice: Four-year results from a patient registry in France

Journal of Glaucoma

Volumn 19, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 199-206

  Kobelt, Gisela ^a   Texier Richard, Brigitte ^a   Buchholz, Patricia ^b   Bron, Alain ^c   Renard, Jean Paul ^d   Rouland, Jean Francois ^e   Nordmann, Jean Philippe ^f  

^a Speracedes   (France)

^b DIJON UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (France)

^c Department of Ophthalmology   (France)

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

^e LILLE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (France)

^f IDS SCHEER AG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Clinical outcomes; Costs; France; Glaucoma; Patient registries

Indexed keywords

AMIDE; ANTIHYPERTENSIVE AGENT; BIMATOPROST; CLOPROSTENOL; DRUG DERIVATIVE; LATANOPROST; PROSTAGLANDIN F; TRAVOPROST;

AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DRUG COST; DRUG EFFECT; ECONOMICS; FEMALE; FRANCE; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HUMAN; INTRAOCULAR HYPERTENSION; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTICENTER STUDY; OPEN ANGLE GLAUCOMA; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; REGISTER; UTILIZATION REVIEW;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; AMIDES; ANTIHYPERTENSIVE AGENTS; CLOPROSTENOL; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DRUG COSTS; FEMALE; FRANCE; GLAUCOMA, OPEN-ANGLE; HEALTH CARE COSTS; HEALTH RESOURCES; HUMANS; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OCULAR HYPERTENSION; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; PROSTAGLANDINS F, SYNTHETIC; REGISTRIES;

EID: 79952045287     PISSN: 10570829     EISSN: 1536481X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0b013e3181af31d6     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Brown M, Brown J, Sharma S, et al. Quality of life associated with visual loss. a time tradeoff utility analysis comparison with medical health states. Ophthalmology. 2003; 110: 1076-1081.
2. Kobelt G, Jonsson B, Bergstrom A, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis in glaucoma: what drives utility? Results from a pilot study in Sweden. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2006; 84: 363-371.
3. Heijl A, Leske MC, Bengtsson B, et al. Reduction of intraocular pressure and glaucoma progression: results from the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial. Arch Ophthalmol. 2002; 120: 1268-1279.
4. Leske MC, Heijl A, Hussein M, et al. Factors for glaucoma progression and the effect of treatment: the early manifest glaucoma trial. Arch Ophthalmol. 2003; 121: 48-56.
5. Heijl A, Bengtsson B, Chauhan BC, et al. A comparison of visual field progression criteria of 3 major glaucoma trials in Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial patients. Ophthalmology. 2008; 115: 1557-1565.
6. Traverso CE, Walt JG, Kelly SP, et al. Direct costs of glaucoma and severity of the disease: a multinational long term study of resource utilization in Europe. Br J Ophthalmol. 2005; 89: 1245-1249.
7. Lee PP, Kelly SP, Mills RP, et al. Glaucoma in the United States and Europe: predicting costs and surgical rates based upon stage of disease. J Glaucoma. 2007; 16: 471-478.
8. Thygesen J, Aagren M, Arnavielle S, et al. Late-stage, primary open-angle glaucoma in Europe: social and health care maintenance costs and quality of life of patients from 4 countries. Curr Med Res Opin. 2008; 24: 1763-1770.
9. Jönsson B, Krieglstein G, Eds. Primary Open Angle Glaucoma. Differences in International Treatment Patterns and Costs. Oxford: Isis Medical Media; 1999: 1-175.
10. Bentkover J. Use of beta-blockers in the treatment of glaucoma: a cost-benefit study. Pharmaceutical Manufacturer’s Association; 1984.
11. Kobelt G, Jönsson L. Modeling cost of patient management with new topical treatments for glaucoma. Results for France and the UK. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1999; 15: 207-219.
12. Kobelt G. Results of observational studies and simulation models. In: Jönsson B, Krieglstein G, eds. Primary Open Angle Glaucoma. Differences in International Treatment Patterns and Costs. Oxford: Isis Medical Media; 1999: 45-137.
13. Hayashi K, Hayashi H, Nakao F, et al. Effect of cataract surgery on intraocular pressure control in glaucoma patients. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2001; 27: 1779-1786.
14. Neymark N, Buchholz P, Honrubia F, et al. The costs of treating glaucoma with combinations of topical drugs in Spain. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2008; 18: 52-59.
15. Rouland JF, Le Pen C. Naturalistic, prospective study of glaucoma and ocular hypertension treatment in France: strategies, clinical outcomes, and costs at 1 year. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2003; 13(suppl 4): S5-S20.
16. 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 J Ophthalmol. 2005; 15: 562-580.
17. Chauhan BC, Garway-Heath DF, Goni FJ, et al. Practical recommendations for measuring rates of visual field change in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 2008; 92: 569-573.
18. Direction Générale de la Santé. L’évaluation de l’impact d’un médicament sur la santé des populations et la santé publique. Rapport du Groupe Technique National de Définition des Objectifs; www.sante.gouv.fr.
19. Haute Autorité Sanitaire. Dépistage et diagnostic précoce du glaucome: Problèmes et Perspectives en France. In: HAS. Rapport d’orientation, November 2006.
20. Laboratoire Oeil et Nutrition. INRA (National Institute for Agricultural Research). Dijon 2006; http://www2.dijon.inra.fr/flavic/site_en/rech_oeil_pres.htm.