AIM: To evaluate 5-year effectiveness and cost between latanoprost or timolol monotherapy in a pilot trial. METHODS: A retrospective, multi-center trial performed at 6 sites in Germany of patients who had a diagnosis of primary open-angle or pigmentary glaucoma, in at least one eye, initiated on monotherapy with latanoprost or timolol maleate. Qualified consecutive charts were reviewed in which 5-year efficacy, safety and cost data was abstracted. RESULTS: Seventy-seoen latanoprost and 49 timolol patients were included, at the final visit no difference existed between the two groups in disc parameters including: rim area, rim area/disc area ratio, cup volume or vertical cup/disc ratio (P>0.05). There was no difference in intraocular pressure (IOP) between the initial latanoprost (17.4±2.6) and timolol (16.3±2.8mmHg) groups. There was less change in medicines over the follow-up period (0.1 vs 0.8) and fewer medications at the final visit (1.2 vs 1.8) with latanoprost compared to timolol. No patient treated with latanoprost discontinued therapy during follow-up, while 12% discontinued timolol mostly due to inadequate IOP control. Cost/year was less with initial timolol ($458±236) as compared to latanoprost ($552±202). CONCLUSION: Patients begun on latanoprost or timolol and followed over 5 years may have similar clinical outcomes. However, timolol patients may require more medicines and medicine changes to control IOP for long-term, but at a lower cost.
AIM: To evaluate 5-year effectiveness and cost between latanoprost or timolol monotherapy in a pilot trial. METHODS: A retrospective, multi-center trial performed at 6 sites in Germany of patients who had a diagnosis of primary open-angle or pigmentary glaucoma, in at least one eye, initiated on monotherapy with latanoprost or timolol maleate. Qualified consecutive charts were reviewed in which 5-year efficacy, safety and cost data was abstracted. RESULTS: Seventy-seoen latanoprost and 49 timololpatients were included, at the final visit no difference existed between the two groups in disc parameters including: rim area, rim area/disc area ratio, cup volume or vertical cup/disc ratio (P>0.05). There was no difference in intraocular pressure (IOP) between the initial latanoprost (17.4±2.6) and timolol (16.3±2.8mmHg) groups. There was less change in medicines over the follow-up period (0.1 vs 0.8) and fewer medications at the final visit (1.2 vs 1.8) with latanoprost compared to timolol. No patient treated with latanoprost discontinued therapy during follow-up, while 12% discontinued timolol mostly due to inadequate IOP control. Cost/year was less with initial timolol ($458±236) as compared to latanoprost ($552±202). CONCLUSION:Patients begun on latanoprost or timolol and followed over 5 years may have similar clinical outcomes. However, timololpatients may require more medicines and medicine changes to control IOP for long-term, but at a lower cost.
Authors: Rikkert van der Valk; Carroll A B Webers; Thomas Lumley; Fred Hendrikse; Martin H Prins; Jan S A G Schouten Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2009-08-28 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Douglas G Day; Paul N Schacknow; Elizabeth D Sharpe; John C Ellyn; John C Kulze; Anisa B Threlkeld; Evan D Jones; Reay H Brown; Jessica N Jenkins; William C Stewart Journal: J Ocul Pharmacol Ther Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 2.671
Authors: Gábor Holló; Ulrich Thelen; Miguel A Teus; Luciano Quaranta; Sylvia Ferkova; Nikola Babić; Marta Misiuk-Hojlo; Dimitrios G Mikropoulos; Bartlomiej J Kaluzny; Vassilios Kozobolis; Ingrida Januleviciene; Péter Kóthy; Cristina Camara; Andrea Russo; Patrycja Krzyzanowska-Berkowska; Iwona Cieślińska; Jeanette A Stewart; Michael S Kristoffersen; Lindsay A Nelson; William C Stewart Journal: J Ocul Pharmacol Ther Date: 2011-07-26 Impact factor: 2.671
Authors: Carlo Lazzaro; Cécile van Steen; Stephan Billeit; Heinrich Frauenknecht; Christopher Kallen; Stefan Pfennigsdorf; Ulrich Thelen; Luigi Angelillo Journal: Clin Ophthalmol Date: 2022-02-09