PURPOSE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of latanoprost or timolol in glaucoma treatment in Norway, Sweden, Denmark (Scandinavia) and the United Kingdom (UK). METHODS: A Markov model was constructed to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis. Health states were 'stable' and 'progressed' glaucoma, and transition probabilities for both primary open-angle and exfoliation glaucoma were derived from the medical literature. Practice patterns were obtained from surveys completed by 54 ophthalmologists geographically dispersed throughout each country. Country specific unit costs were used for medications, patient visits, diagnostics, and therapeutic procedures. RESULTS: Over the life of the model latanoprost was less expensive than timolol by 5.3-7.6% (Scandinavia) and 2.1% (UK). Following adjustments, therapy in the original timolol-treated cohort was slightly more effective in each country with a difference in 0.003-0.015 years to progression of glaucoma existing between latanoprost. This may have resulted from the model design, which reflected that physicians ultimately control most patients' glaucoma over 5 years by adding or changing therapy. The associated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for latanoprost vs timolol generated by the Scandinavian and the UK models, respectively, were: Norway 351,396 NOK; Sweden 988,985 SEK; Denmark 351,641; and the UK 4751 GBP. CONCLUSIONS: Over 5 years, in the UK timolol is the cost-effective option, whereas in Scandinavia latanoprost may be the cost-effective alternative to timolol.
PURPOSE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of latanoprost or timolol in glaucoma treatment in Norway, Sweden, Denmark (Scandinavia) and the United Kingdom (UK). METHODS: A Markov model was constructed to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis. Health states were 'stable' and 'progressed' glaucoma, and transition probabilities for both primary open-angle and exfoliation glaucoma were derived from the medical literature. Practice patterns were obtained from surveys completed by 54 ophthalmologists geographically dispersed throughout each country. Country specific unit costs were used for medications, patient visits, diagnostics, and therapeutic procedures. RESULTS: Over the life of the model latanoprost was less expensive than timolol by 5.3-7.6% (Scandinavia) and 2.1% (UK). Following adjustments, therapy in the original timolol-treated cohort was slightly more effective in each country with a difference in 0.003-0.015 years to progression of glaucoma existing between latanoprost. This may have resulted from the model design, which reflected that physicians ultimately control most patients' glaucoma over 5 years by adding or changing therapy. The associated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for latanoprost vs timolol generated by the Scandinavian and the UK models, respectively, were: Norway 351,396 NOK; Sweden 988,985 SEK; Denmark 351,641; and the UK 4751 GBP. CONCLUSIONS: Over 5 years, in the UK timolol is the cost-effective option, whereas in Scandinavia latanoprost may be the cost-effective alternative to timolol.
Authors: Ulrich Thelen; Dietmar Schnober; Sonja Schölzel; Michael S Kristoffersen; Lindsay A Nelson; Jeanette A Stewart; William C Stewart Journal: Int J Ophthalmol Date: 2013-04-18 Impact factor: 1.779