PURPOSE: To compare the effect of time on therapy, efficacy, tolerability and resource utilization of latanoprost or non-prostaglandin analogues (non-PGs) in patients who required a change in intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering monotherapy. METHODS: This open-label, multicentre study (Sweden, 19 sites; Finland, seven sites) included adults with glaucoma or ocular hypertension with mean diurnal IOP > or = 21 mmHg on ocular hypotensive monotherapy. Patients were randomized to latanoprost monotherapy or non-PG therapy (commercially available therapy other than a PG) and followed for 36 months. End-points included: time to treatment failure (baseline to visit with a change in/addition to treatment); diurnal IOP (mean of 08.00, 12.00 and 16:00 hr measurements) at months 6, 12, 24 and 36; tolerability; and resource utilization, where analyses used Swedish and Finnish 2006 unit costs. RESULTS:Three hundred and twenty-six patients received >or = 1 dose of latanoprost (n = 162) or non-PGs (n = 164). Median time to treatment failure was longer for latanoprost (36 months) than for non-PGs (12 months; p < 0.001); 51% and 24% of patients remained on randomized therapy after 36 months, respectively (p < 0.001). Decreases in mean diurnal IOP from baseline were significantly greater for latanoprost than for non-PGs at months 6 and 12 (p < 0.01). No serious adverse events were judged to be treatment-related. Mean total 36-month direct costs were similar in patients initiated with latanoprost and non-PGs. CONCLUSION:Patients who failed previous monotherapy remained on therapy longer when switched tolatanoprost. Latanoprost's IOP-reducing effect and tolerability were sustained over the long term. Resource utilization and costs were generally similar in those initiating latanoprost or non-PG therapy.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To compare the effect of time on therapy, efficacy, tolerability and resource utilization of latanoprost or non-prostaglandin analogues (non-PGs) in patients who required a change in intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering monotherapy. METHODS: This open-label, multicentre study (Sweden, 19 sites; Finland, seven sites) included adults with glaucoma or ocular hypertension with mean diurnal IOP > or = 21 mmHg on ocular hypotensive monotherapy. Patients were randomized to latanoprost monotherapy or non-PG therapy (commercially available therapy other than a PG) and followed for 36 months. End-points included: time to treatment failure (baseline to visit with a change in/addition to treatment); diurnal IOP (mean of 08.00, 12.00 and 16:00 hr measurements) at months 6, 12, 24 and 36; tolerability; and resource utilization, where analyses used Swedish and Finnish 2006 unit costs. RESULTS: Three hundred and twenty-six patients received >or = 1 dose of latanoprost (n = 162) or non-PGs (n = 164). Median time to treatment failure was longer for latanoprost (36 months) than for non-PGs (12 months; p < 0.001); 51% and 24% of patients remained on randomized therapy after 36 months, respectively (p < 0.001). Decreases in mean diurnal IOP from baseline were significantly greater for latanoprost than for non-PGs at months 6 and 12 (p < 0.01). No serious adverse events were judged to be treatment-related. Mean total 36-month direct costs were similar in patients initiated with latanoprost and non-PGs. CONCLUSION:Patients who failed previous monotherapy remained on therapy longer when switched to latanoprost. Latanoprost's IOP-reducing effect and tolerability were sustained over the long term. Resource utilization and costs were generally similar in those initiating latanoprost or non-PG therapy.