BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Control of intraocular pressure (IOP) is a major factor in avoiding visual impairment related to glaucoma. Both the cost and the effectiveness of therapy should be considered when initiating this lifelong treatment. The aim of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of travoprost versus latanoprost as single agents for the treatment of glaucoma in France. METHODS: Two surveys, one documenting efficacy and the other costs, were used to provide data for a Markov model. The model reproduced the 5-year course of patients receiving a prostaglandin analogue, travoprost or latanoprost, as monotherapy. The effectiveness criterion was fitted with a Weibull distribution from a national study. Transition probabilities and costs per treatment line were extracted from two French observational databases. Bootstrap techniques were implemented to drive the probabilistic sensitivity analyses. The study compared both treatments given once daily as monotherapy to ambulatory patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. The main outcome measure was mean time to treatment change (MTTC). Possible treatment changes were the addition of adjunctive medication, treatment substitution, laser therapy or surgery. After laser therapy or surgery, patients could continue with no treatment or proceed to prostaglandin analogue as monotherapy or treatment substitution. IOP was stratified at treatment onset as < or =20, 21-23 and > or =24 mmHg, respectively. All costs were expressed in 2005 euros. RESULTS: MTTC was 44.3 months for travoprost and 37.8 for latanoprost. Additional 5-year costs for travoprost were euro51, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio without treatment change of euro95 per year. Of patients treated with latanoprost, 1.9% underwent laser therapy or surgery, compared with 1.2% of patients treated with travoprost. The results differed with baseline IOP values, such that 55.6%, 53.9% and 50.4% of patients with pretreatment IOP values of < or =20, 21-23 and > or =24 mmHg, respectively, continued to receive travoprost treatment at 5 years, compared with 32.3%, 26.1% and 26.1% of patients, respectively, receiving latanoprost. Thus, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) without treatment change were euro140, euro45 and euro123 per year, respectively. CONCLUSION: Travoprost demonstrated a longer effectiveness profile than latanoprost and minimized early treatment changes. The smaller proportion of patients needing a new treatment, laser therapy or surgery virtually compensated for the higher travoprost acquisition cost. Overall, travoprost is cost effective compared with latanoprost, and is most cost effective in patients with pretreatment IOPs between 21 and 23 mmHg.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Control of intraocular pressure (IOP) is a major factor in avoiding visual impairment related to glaucoma. Both the cost and the effectiveness of therapy should be considered when initiating this lifelong treatment. The aim of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of travoprost versus latanoprost as single agents for the treatment of glaucoma in France. METHODS: Two surveys, one documenting efficacy and the other costs, were used to provide data for a Markov model. The model reproduced the 5-year course of patients receiving a prostaglandin analogue, travoprost or latanoprost, as monotherapy. The effectiveness criterion was fitted with a Weibull distribution from a national study. Transition probabilities and costs per treatment line were extracted from two French observational databases. Bootstrap techniques were implemented to drive the probabilistic sensitivity analyses. The study compared both treatments given once daily as monotherapy to ambulatory patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. The main outcome measure was mean time to treatment change (MTTC). Possible treatment changes were the addition of adjunctive medication, treatment substitution, laser therapy or surgery. After laser therapy or surgery, patients could continue with no treatment or proceed to prostaglandin analogue as monotherapy or treatment substitution. IOP was stratified at treatment onset as < or =20, 21-23 and > or =24 mmHg, respectively. All costs were expressed in 2005 euros. RESULTS:MTTC was 44.3 months for travoprost and 37.8 for latanoprost. Additional 5-year costs for travoprost were euro51, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio without treatment change of euro95 per year. Of patients treated with latanoprost, 1.9% underwent laser therapy or surgery, compared with 1.2% of patients treated with travoprost. The results differed with baseline IOP values, such that 55.6%, 53.9% and 50.4% of patients with pretreatment IOP values of < or =20, 21-23 and > or =24 mmHg, respectively, continued to receive travoprost treatment at 5 years, compared with 32.3%, 26.1% and 26.1% of patients, respectively, receiving latanoprost. Thus, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) without treatment change were euro140, euro45 and euro123 per year, respectively. CONCLUSION:Travoprost demonstrated a longer effectiveness profile than latanoprost and minimized early treatment changes. The smaller proportion of patients needing a new treatment, laser therapy or surgery virtually compensated for the higher travoprost acquisition cost. Overall, travoprost is cost effective compared with latanoprost, and is most cost effective in patients with pretreatment IOPs between 21 and 23 mmHg.
Authors: Maria Fernanda Delgado; Ahmed Mostafa Abdelrahman; Malika Terahi; Juan Jose Miro Quesada Woll; Felix Gil-Carrasco; Colin Cook; Mohamed Benharbit; Sebastien Boisseau; Ernestine Chung; Yacine Hadjiat; José Ap Gomes Journal: Clinicoecon Outcomes Res Date: 2019-09-27