Joanna H Queen1, Robert M Feldman1, David A Lee2. 1. Ruiz Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (UTHealth) McGovern Medical School, Houston, Texas; Robert Cizik Eye Clinic, Houston, Texas. 2. Ruiz Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (UTHealth) McGovern Medical School, Houston, Texas; Robert Cizik Eye Clinic, Houston, Texas. Electronic address: dlee@cizikeye.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate discrepancies in doses per bottle, bottle fill volume, and cost among branded and generic formulations of latanoprost. DESIGN: Comparative economic analysis. METHODS: This study was conducted at the Ruiz Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Science at The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (UTHealth). Four regionally available latanoprost formulations were measured. Number of drops per bottle and actual bottle fill volume were measured for a calculated sample size (10 bottles). Annual cost (using average wholesale price), days use per bottle, drops per milliliter, and number of bottles used per year were calculated. Data were summarized using mean and standard deviation; 1-way analysis of variance and post hoc Tukey's studentized range test were used for comparing means among manufacturers. RESULTS: Pfizer's branded lantanoprost, Xalatan (New York, New York, USA), had the largest fill volume (P < .001). Pfizer had the highest yearly cost at $1198 (P < .001), whereas Akorn (Lake Forest, Illinois, USA) and Bausch & Lomb (Rochester, New York, USA) had the lowest ($184 and $201, respectively). Pfizer and Bausch & Lomb had the most drops per bottle (87.3 and 88.7, respectively), which was statistically more (P < .001) than either Akorn or Sandoz (Princeton, New Jersey, USA) (77.6 and 76.6, respectively), but there was no statistical difference among the standard deviation of drops per bottle (Levene 0.14). CONCLUSIONS: Annual cost and number of doses per bottle, factors important to patients, vary significantly depending on the manufacturer of latanoprost. Practitioners can better advise patients by being aware of these differences.
PURPOSE: To evaluate discrepancies in doses per bottle, bottle fill volume, and cost among branded and generic formulations of latanoprost. DESIGN: Comparative economic analysis. METHODS: This study was conducted at the Ruiz Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Science at The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (UTHealth). Four regionally available latanoprost formulations were measured. Number of drops per bottle and actual bottle fill volume were measured for a calculated sample size (10 bottles). Annual cost (using average wholesale price), days use per bottle, drops per milliliter, and number of bottles used per year were calculated. Data were summarized using mean and standard deviation; 1-way analysis of variance and post hoc Tukey's studentized range test were used for comparing means among manufacturers. RESULTS: Pfizer's branded lantanoprost, Xalatan (New York, New York, USA), had the largest fill volume (P < .001). Pfizer had the highest yearly cost at $1198 (P < .001), whereas Akorn (Lake Forest, Illinois, USA) and Bausch & Lomb (Rochester, New York, USA) had the lowest ($184 and $201, respectively). Pfizer and Bausch & Lomb had the most drops per bottle (87.3 and 88.7, respectively), which was statistically more (P < .001) than either Akorn or Sandoz (Princeton, New Jersey, USA) (77.6 and 76.6, respectively), but there was no statistical difference among the standard deviation of drops per bottle (Levene 0.14). CONCLUSIONS: Annual cost and number of doses per bottle, factors important to patients, vary significantly depending on the manufacturer of latanoprost. Practitioners can better advise patients by being aware of these differences.
Authors: Liang Lin; Ying Jiao Zhao; Paul T K Chew; Chelvin C A Sng; Hon-Tym Wong; Leonard W Yip; Tuck Seng Wu; Dianne Bautista; Monica Teng; Ai Leng Khoo; Boon Peng Lim Journal: Ann Pharmacother Date: 2014-09-02 Impact factor: 3.154
Authors: Dan Gong; Jonathan S Chang; Miriam Barbany; Borja F Corcostegui; Mehmet Fatih Kağan Değirmenci; Hiroto Ishikawa; Zaid Mammo; Emin Ozmert; Tommaso Rossi; Stanley Chang Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2019-05-27 Impact factor: 12.079