OBJECTIVE: The objective of this cost-effectiveness analysis is to evaluate cost-effectiveness ratios of the intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering agents bimatoprost, latanoprost and timolol in five major European countries: France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK. METHODS: The cost-effectiveness analysis is based on achievement of IOP targets between 13 and 18 mm Hg. Thus, the cost-effectiveness ratios express the costs of having one patient successfully achieving IOP target. The perspective of the analysis is that of the health care sector payer, including costs of medicine and costs of ophthalmologist visits. The time frame is first year of glaucoma treatment. Four treatment strategies are analysed: Timolol as first line with add-on latanoprost or bimatoprost if IOP targets are not met, and latanoprost and bimatoprost as first line with add-on timolol. RESULTS: In the UK, Spain, Italy and Germany the timolol first with add-on of bimatoprost is the least expensive treatment. This strategy dominates both strategies involving latanoprost (as add-on to timolol or as first line) in these four countries. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of bimatoprost first-line therapy versus timolol with add-on bimatoprost varies from each country and target (from 305 pounds sterlings to 43,720 euros per patient). In France the timolol first line and latanoprost add-on is not dominated and is the cheapest alternative. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of timolol with add-on bimatoprost versus add-on latanoprost lies between 71 euros and 355 euros per patient depending on target (18 and 13 mm Hg, respectively). CONCLUSION: First-line treatment of latanoprost is dominated in all countries. In four out of five countries the timolol first-line therapy with add-on latanoprost is also dominated. Based on this pharmacoeconomic analysis, the most cost-effective strategy seems to be timolol first line with add-on bimatoprost if target is not met after 3 months.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this cost-effectiveness analysis is to evaluate cost-effectiveness ratios of the intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering agents bimatoprost, latanoprost and timolol in five major European countries: France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK. METHODS: The cost-effectiveness analysis is based on achievement of IOP targets between 13 and 18 mm Hg. Thus, the cost-effectiveness ratios express the costs of having one patient successfully achieving IOP target. The perspective of the analysis is that of the health care sector payer, including costs of medicine and costs of ophthalmologist visits. The time frame is first year of glaucoma treatment. Four treatment strategies are analysed: Timolol as first line with add-on latanoprost or bimatoprost if IOP targets are not met, and latanoprost and bimatoprost as first line with add-on timolol. RESULTS: In the UK, Spain, Italy and Germany the timolol first with add-on of bimatoprost is the least expensive treatment. This strategy dominates both strategies involving latanoprost (as add-on to timolol or as first line) in these four countries. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of bimatoprost first-line therapy versus timolol with add-on bimatoprost varies from each country and target (from 305 pounds sterlings to 43,720 euros per patient). In France the timolol first line and latanoprost add-on is not dominated and is the cheapest alternative. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of timolol with add-on bimatoprost versus add-on latanoprost lies between 71 euros and 355 euros per patient depending on target (18 and 13 mm Hg, respectively). CONCLUSION: First-line treatment of latanoprost is dominated in all countries. In four out of five countries the timolol first-line therapy with add-on latanoprost is also dominated. Based on this pharmacoeconomic analysis, the most cost-effective strategy seems to be timolol first line with add-on bimatoprost if target is not met after 3 months.