BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to perform an economic analysis of the cost-effectiveness of prostaglandin analogues for the treatment of increased intraocular pressure (IOP). Prostaglandin analogues for ophthalmic use are more costly than alternative agents for the lowering of IOP. An important policy decision is whether to support continued open listing of these agents or to restrict them to limited use status. METHODS: The cost-effectiveness of prostaglandin analogues was assessed using a decision analytic model. Latanoprost was compared with timolol, dorzolamide, and brimonidine, and travoprost was compared with timolol separately. The effectiveness data used for this economic analysis were the number of millilitres of mercury of IOP reduction compared with baseline and the incidence of adverse events resulting in a withdrawal of the patient from the study. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the study results. RESULTS: Compared with latanoprost, dorzolamide was not a cost-effective strategy. Compared with brimonidine, latanoprost provided a higher IOP reduction with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $16.17 (base case), but the additional IOP reduction with latanoprost was obtained at a cost higher than the average cost per millimetre of mercury reduction obtained with brimonidine. Compared with timolol, latanoprost and travoprost had a positive incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $34.48 and $39.06, respectively. INTERPRETATION: For the first-line treatment of glaucoma and elevated IOP, latanoprost is a more cost-effective strategy than dorzolamide and brimonidine. Latanoprost and travoprost are more effective than timolol but also more expensive. For those for whom timolol is not contraindicated, it would be preferable, from a cost-effectiveness standpoint, to initiate treatment with timolol and reserve the prostaglandin analogues as an alternative treatment or as add-on therapy for patients not achieving a clinical response with timolol. Better treatment compliance associated with these analogues improves their cost-effectiveness.
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to perform an economic analysis of the cost-effectiveness of prostaglandin analogues for the treatment of increased intraocular pressure (IOP). Prostaglandin analogues for ophthalmic use are more costly than alternative agents for the lowering of IOP. An important policy decision is whether to support continued open listing of these agents or to restrict them to limited use status. METHODS: The cost-effectiveness of prostaglandin analogues was assessed using a decision analytic model. Latanoprost was compared with timolol, dorzolamide, and brimonidine, and travoprost was compared with timolol separately. The effectiveness data used for this economic analysis were the number of millilitres of mercury of IOP reduction compared with baseline and the incidence of adverse events resulting in a withdrawal of the patient from the study. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the study results. RESULTS: Compared with latanoprost, dorzolamide was not a cost-effective strategy. Compared with brimonidine, latanoprost provided a higher IOP reduction with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $16.17 (base case), but the additional IOP reduction with latanoprost was obtained at a cost higher than the average cost per millimetre of mercury reduction obtained with brimonidine. Compared with timolol, latanoprost and travoprost had a positive incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $34.48 and $39.06, respectively. INTERPRETATION: For the first-line treatment of glaucoma and elevated IOP, latanoprost is a more cost-effective strategy than dorzolamide and brimonidine. Latanoprost and travoprost are more effective than timolol but also more expensive. For those for whom timolol is not contraindicated, it would be preferable, from a cost-effectiveness standpoint, to initiate treatment with timolol and reserve the prostaglandin analogues as an alternative treatment or as add-on therapy for patients not achieving a clinical response with timolol. Better treatment compliance associated with these analogues improves their cost-effectiveness.