A Martínez1, J Slof. 1. Instituto Gallego de Oftalmología, Santiago de Compostela, La Coruña, España.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-efficacy of three fixed-combination glaucoma treatments currently available in Spain [bimatoprost with timolol (BT)- Ganfort, latanoprost with timolol (LT)- Xalacom, and travoprost with timolol (TT)- DuoTrav]. METHODS: Because no studies are available that give a direct comparison of these drugs, a systematic review was carried out to assess their efficacy. Resource consumption and costs were estimated using a model of usual local practice. For each of the three drugs, average and incremental cost-efficacy ratios were determined in terms of euros per percentage point of reduction of intraocular pressure (IOP) over a three-month period. RESULTS: BT reduced IOP by 35.1%, LT by 35.0% and TT by 34.7%. Average cost-efficacy was estimated to be euro 5.34 per percentage point of IOP reduction with BT, euro 5.40 with LT, and euro 5.45 with TT. Incremental cost-efficacy (incremental cost per incremental percentage point of IOP reduction) was estimated to be euro 94.65 for LT vs. TT, and was negative for BT vs. TT and BT vs. LT, since in both cases BT was more efficacious and less expensive. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to travoprost/timolol and latanoprost/timolol, bimatoprost/timolol appears to be the most economic alternative, with equal or better efficacy and safety results.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-efficacy of three fixed-combination glaucoma treatments currently available in Spain [bimatoprost with timolol (BT)- Ganfort, latanoprost with timolol (LT)- Xalacom, and travoprost with timolol (TT)- DuoTrav]. METHODS: Because no studies are available that give a direct comparison of these drugs, a systematic review was carried out to assess their efficacy. Resource consumption and costs were estimated using a model of usual local practice. For each of the three drugs, average and incremental cost-efficacy ratios were determined in terms of euros per percentage point of reduction of intraocular pressure (IOP) over a three-month period. RESULTS:BT reduced IOP by 35.1%, LT by 35.0% and TT by 34.7%. Average cost-efficacy was estimated to be euro 5.34 per percentage point of IOP reduction with BT, euro 5.40 with LT, and euro 5.45 with TT. Incremental cost-efficacy (incremental cost per incremental percentage point of IOP reduction) was estimated to be euro 94.65 for LT vs. TT, and was negative for BT vs. TT and BT vs. LT, since in both cases BT was more efficacious and less expensive. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to travoprost/timolol and latanoprost/timolol, bimatoprost/timolol appears to be the most economic alternative, with equal or better efficacy and safety results.