PURPOSE: We compared differences associated with use of travoprost and latanoprost on both progression of perimetric loss over time and associated costs among black patients. METHODS:Patients with primary open-angle glaucome or ocular hypertension were randomly assigned to one of four arms in a 12-month, double-masked study: travoprost (0.004% or 0.0015%), latanoprost (0.005%), or timolol (0.5%). Forty-nine patients received 0.004% travoprost, 43 received latanoprost, and 40 received timolol. We applied algorithms found in published studies that link intraocular pressure (IOP) control to visual field progression and calculated the likelihood of visual field deterioration based on IOP data. This was used to estimate differences in medical care costs. RESULTS: The average IOP was lower for patients receiving travoprost than for patients receiving latanoprost or timolol (17.3 versus 18.7 versus 20.5 mm Hg respectively, P < .05). Travoprost-treated patients had a smaller predicted change in visual field defect score (VFDS) than latanoprost-treated patients and timolol-treated patients, and significantly fewer were expected to demonstrate visual field progression. Medical care costs would be higher for latanoprost-treated and timolol-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: Recent studies have provided algorithms linking IOP control to changes in visual fields. We found that treatment with travoprost was associated with less visual field progression and potential cost savings.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: We compared differences associated with use of travoprost and latanoprost on both progression of perimetric loss over time and associated costs among black patients. METHODS:Patients with primary open-angle glaucome or ocular hypertension were randomly assigned to one of four arms in a 12-month, double-masked study: travoprost (0.004% or 0.0015%), latanoprost (0.005%), or timolol (0.5%). Forty-nine patients received 0.004% travoprost, 43 received latanoprost, and 40 received timolol. We applied algorithms found in published studies that link intraocular pressure (IOP) control to visual field progression and calculated the likelihood of visual field deterioration based on IOP data. This was used to estimate differences in medical care costs. RESULTS: The average IOP was lower for patients receiving travoprost than for patients receiving latanoprost or timolol (17.3 versus 18.7 versus 20.5 mm Hg respectively, P < .05). Travoprost-treated patients had a smaller predicted change in visual field defect score (VFDS) than latanoprost-treated patients and timolol-treated patients, and significantly fewer were expected to demonstrate visual field progression. Medical care costs would be higher for latanoprost-treated and timolol-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: Recent studies have provided algorithms linking IOP control to changes in visual fields. We found that treatment with travoprost was associated with less visual field progression and potential cost savings.
Authors: P A Netland; T Landry; E K Sullivan; R Andrew; L Silver; A Weiner; S Mallick; J Dickerson; M V Bergamini; S M Robertson; A A Davis Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2001-10 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Steven M Kymes; Caroline Burk; Todd Feinman; Julia M Williams; David A Hollander Journal: Ther Clin Risk Manag Date: 2011-07-12 Impact factor: 2.423