Bimatoprost: a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension

Bimatoprost (Lumigan) is a prostamide analogue used for the reduction of elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. In comparative clinical trials of up to 1 year in duration, administration of 0.03% bimatoprost ophthalmic solution once daily was more effective than 0.5% timolol twice daily and at least as effective as the prostaglandin analogues 0.005% latanoprost and 0.004% travoprost once daily in terms of reducing IOP and/or achieving target IOP levels. Bimatoprost was also more effective than twice-daily administration of 0.5%/2% timolol/dorzolamide in patients refractory to topical timolol therapy. Although generally well tolerated, bimatoprost is associated with a higher incidence of conjunctival hyperaemia than latanoprost, timolol or the combination of timolol and dorzolamide. Three fully published modelled cost-effectiveness analyses of bimatoprost evaluating cost per treatment success in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension have been conducted in the US. The analyses incorporated results of randomised, multicentre clinical trials and used a 1-year time horizon. In the treatment algorithm used in the models, patients not achieving target IOP levels with bimatoprost or comparator required additional medical visits and adjunctive therapy. Bimatoprost was associated with lower costs per treatment success than latanoprost, timolol or timolol/dorzolamide across a range of clinically relevant target IOPs. Results were sensitive to changes in treatment success rates and/or drug acquisition costs. Along with the inherent limitations of economic models, other possible criticisms of the analyses are the use of selected IOP data, and the lack of inclusion of costs associated with conjunctival hyperaemia or other adverse effects of therapy. Various other cost-effectiveness analyses of bimatoprost are available, primarily as abstracts and/or posters. In general, most of these studies have also been favourable for bimatoprost, despite having been conducted in different countries and/or from different perspectives.In conclusion, in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension, bimatoprost is an effective and generally well tolerated therapeutic option, albeit with a relatively high incidence of conjunctival hyperaemia. Although results of modelled cost-effectiveness analyses should be interpreted with due consideration of the limitations of the studies, available pharmacoeconomic data generally support the use of bimatoprost as a cost-effective treatment in this patient population.     

Estimated comparative costs of achieving a 20% reduction in intraocular pressure with bimatoprost or latanoprost in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension

BACKGROUND: Although the probability of treatment success should be the primary factor guiding the choice of an intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering medication, treatment cost is also important to physicians, patients and third-party payers. The objective of the present study was to compare the cost effectiveness of bimatoprost with that of latanoprost in the treatment of glaucoma and ocular hypertension. METHODS: Estimated yearly costs and cost per treatment success for bimatoprost ophthalmic solution 0.03% once daily (Lumigan), Allergan, Inc., Irvine, CA, USA) were compared with those for latanoprost ophthalmic solution 0.005% once daily (Xalatan), Pfizer, Inc., New York, NY, USA). The pharmacoeconomic model was based on medical resource costs and the percentage of patients achieving > or =20% decrease in IOP from baseline at 8:00 am, 12:00 pm and 4:00 pm after 6 months of treatment (clinical success rate). Calculations were also made using the average success rate throughout the day and the average success rate minus the percentage of patients who withdrew from treatment as a result of adverse events. RESULTS: After 6 months of treatment, the clinical success rates were significantly higher with bimatoprost than with latanoprost (p < or = 0.003). The average expected yearly cost per patient was similar for bimatoprost (US1151 dollars) and latanoprost (US1193 dollars). The cost per treatment success, however, averaged US568 dollars less with bimatoprost (US1501 dollars/success) than with latanoprost (US2069 dollars/success). This was true even when the percentage of patients who withdrew from treatment as a result of adverse events was subtracted from the clinical success rate. CONCLUSION: The greater efficacy of bimatoprost resulted in a lower cost per treatment success than was seen with latanoprost. This remained true even when responder rates were adjusted by subtracting the percentage of patients who withdrew from treatment as a result of adverse events.     

The cost-effectiveness of bimatoprost, latanoprost and timolol in treatment of primary open angle glaucoma in five European countries

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this cost-effectiveness analysis is to evaluate cost-effectiveness ratios of the intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering agents bimatoprost, latanoprost and timolol in five major European countries: France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK. METHODS: The cost-effectiveness analysis is based on achievement of IOP targets between 13 and 18 mm Hg. Thus, the cost-effectiveness ratios express the costs of having one patient successfully achieving IOP target. The perspective of the analysis is that of the health care sector payer, including costs of medicine and costs of ophthalmologist visits. The time frame is first year of glaucoma treatment. Four treatment strategies are analysed: Timolol as first line with add-on latanoprost or bimatoprost if IOP targets are not met, and latanoprost and bimatoprost as first line with add-on timolol. RESULTS: In the UK, Spain, Italy and Germany the timolol first with add-on of bimatoprost is the least expensive treatment. This strategy dominates both strategies involving latanoprost (as add-on to timolol or as first line) in these four countries. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of bimatoprost first-line therapy versus timolol with add-on bimatoprost varies from each country and target (from 305 pounds sterlings to 43,720 euros per patient). In France the timolol first line and latanoprost add-on is not dominated and is the cheapest alternative. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of timolol with add-on bimatoprost versus add-on latanoprost lies between 71 euros and 355 euros per patient depending on target (18 and 13 mm Hg, respectively). CONCLUSION: First-line treatment of latanoprost is dominated in all countries. In four out of five countries the timolol first-line therapy with add-on latanoprost is also dominated. Based on this pharmacoeconomic analysis, the most cost-effective strategy seems to be timolol first line with add-on bimatoprost if target is not met after 3 months.     

The cost-effectiveness of bimatoprost,latanoprost and timolol in treatment of primary open angle glaucoma in five European countries

ABSTRACT

Objective: The objective of this cost-effectiveness analysis is to evaluate cost-effectiveness ratios of the intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering agents bimatoprost, latanoprost and timolol in five major European countries: France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK.

Methods: The cost-effectiveness analysis is based on achievement of IOP targets between 13 and 18?mm Hg. Thus, the cost-effectiveness ratios express the costs of having one patient successfully achieving IOP target. The perspective of the analysis is that of the health care sector payer, including costs of medicine and costs of ophthalmologist visits. The time frame is first year of glaucoma treatment. Four treatment strategies are analysed: Timolol as first line with add-on latanoprost or bimatoprost if IOP targets are not met, and latanoprost and bimatoprost as first line with add-on timolol.

Results: In the UK, Spain, Italy and Germany the timolol first with add-on of bimatoprost is the least expensive treatment. This strategy dominates both strategies involving latanoprost (as add-on to timolol or as first line) in these four countries. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of bimatoprost first-line therapy versus timolol with add-on bimatoprost varies from each country and target (from £305 to €43 720 per patient). In France the timolol first line and latanoprost add-on is not dominated and is the cheapest alternative. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of timolol with add-on bimatoprost versus add-on latanoprost lies between £71 and €355 per patient depending on target (18 and 13?mm Hg, respectively).

Conclusion: First-line treatment of latanoprost is dominated in all countries. In four out of five countries the timolol first-line therapy with add-on latanoprost is also dominated. Based on this pharmacoeconomic analysis, the most costeffective strategy seems to be timolol first line with add-on bimatoprost if target is not met after 3 months.     

Bimatoprost: a member of a new class of agents,the prostamides,for glaucoma management

Bimatoprost, a synthetic analogue of endogenous prostamides, is in development as a topical ocular hypotensive agent for the treatment of glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Prostamides are a newly discovered class of compounds that have been shown to have potent ocular hypotensive activity in the laboratory. Bimatoprost mimics the endogenous prostamides by lowering intraocular pressure (IOP). Bimatoprost provides outstanding control of IOP throughout the day, and a high percentage of patients receiving bimatoprost achieve the low target pressures important for clinical success. In controlled clinical trials, bimatoprost 0.03% given once daily has displayed efficacy superior to timolol 0.5% given twice daily, the current standard for therapy. Analysis of pooled six month data from two large Phase III trials demonstrated that mean IOP was consistently 2 - 3 mmHg lower with bimatoprost q.d. than with timolol b.i.d. Bimatoprost 0.03% q.d. has also been shown to provide significantly better diurnal IOP control than latanoprost 0.005% q.d., probably the most efficacious topical medication currently available. Patients receiving bimatoprost q.d. were more likely than timolol or latanoprost patients to achieve low target pressures. In all clinical evaluations, bimatoprost q.d. has been demonstrated to be safe and well-tolerated. Bimatoprost will likely be available for clinical use in 2001 and it has great potential to be superior to all other medications in IOP-lowering efficacy. It is anticipated that bimatoprost will have an important role in therapy for glaucoma and ocular hypertension.     

Bimatoprost: a member of a new class of agents, the prostamides, for glaucoma management

Bimatoprost, a synthetic analogue of endogenous prostamides, is in development as a topical ocular hypotensive agent for the treatment of glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Prostamides are a newly discovered class of compounds that have been shown to have potent ocular hypotensive activity in the laboratory. Bimatoprost mimics the endogenous prostamides by lowering intraocular pressure (IOP). Bimatoprost provides outstanding control of IOP throughout the day, and a high percentage of patients receiving bimatoprost achieve the low target pressures important for clinical success. In controlled clinical trials, bimatoprost 0.03% given once daily has displayed efficacy superior to timolol 0.5% given twice daily, the current standard for therapy. Analysis of pooled six month data from two large Phase III trials demonstrated that mean IOP was consistently 2 - 3 mmHg lower with bimatoprost q.d. than with timolol b.i.d. Bimatoprost 0.03% q.d. has also been shown to provide significantly better diurnal IOP control than latanoprost 0.005% q.d., probably the most efficacious topical medication currently available. Patients receiving bimatoprost q.d. were more likely than timolol or latanoprost patients to achieve low target pressures. In all clinical evaluations, bimatoprost q.d. has been demonstrated to be safe and well-tolerated. Bimatoprost will likely be available for clinical use in 2001 and it has great potential to be superior to all other medications in IOP-lowering efficacy. It is anticipated that bimatoprost will have an important role in therapy for glaucoma and ocular hypertension.     

Topical bimatoprost: a review of its use in open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension

Bimatoprost, a synthetic prostamide analogue, is a new ocular hypotensive agent indicated for the second-line treatment of open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension. The drug is formulated as a 0.03% ophthalmic solution. Bimatoprost lowers intraocular pressure (IOP) by increasing aqueous humour outflow. When applied topically once daily in patients with ocular hypertension or glaucoma, bimatoprost 0.03% significantly reduced IOP. Mean IOP was reduced by approximately 7.5 to 9.2mm Hg 12 hours after drug administration in randomised clinical trials. The reduction in IOP was maintained throughout the 24-hour dosage interval. Once-daily treatment with bimatoprost 0.03% was found to be significantly more effective than timolol 0.5% (administered twice daily as an ophthalmic solution or once daily as a gel-forming solution) in randomised comparative trials in patients with ocular hypertension and glaucoma. Furthermore, after 1 to 6 months' treatment, the percentage of patients reaching a target IOP of < or =17mm Hg was significantly greater in the bimatoprost-treated groups than in those receiving timolol. Bimatoprost 0.03% ophthalmic solution was found to be at least as effective as topical latanoprost 0.005% administered once daily in two clinical trials. Reductions in IOP 16 and 20 hours postdose were greater in patients treated with bimatoprost, indicating superior control of IOP at timepoints throughout the dosage interval. In patients refractory to beta-blocker therapy, treatment with bimatoprost 0.03% produced greater reductions in diurnal IOP measurements than combination therapy with topical dorzolamide 2%/timolol 0.5%; approximately twice as many bimatoprost 0.03% recipients achieved an IOP of < or =16mm Hg. The most commonly reported adverse effect during clinical trials of once-daily bimatoprost 0.03% was conjunctival hyperaemia which occurred in 42 to 46% of patients treated. However, most cases were mild and only 1 to 4% of patients withdrew from treatment as a result. Overall withdrawal rates as a result of adverse events during clinical trials ranged from 2.6 to 7%. Bimatoprost has been reported to cause changes in the pigmentation of the periorbital skin, eyelashes and iris, and increase eyelash growth. The long-term consequences of these effects are unknown. Cardiopulmonary adverse effects, which have been associated with the use of beta-blockers such as timolol, were not reported in clinical trials of bimatoprost. Thus, in clinical trials of up to 1-year duration, bimatoprost 0.03% has been found to be effective in significantly lowering IOP and is generally well tolerated. It provides an alternative treatment option for patients in whom beta-blockers are contraindicated. Furthermore, bimatoprost provides an effective second-line treatment option in patients who do not achieve target IOP with other topical ocular hypotensive agents, or who experience unacceptable adverse effects. Wider clinical use of this drug will establish the place of bimatoprost in the treatment of open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension.     

A cost-effectiveness analysis of fixed-combination therapies in patients with open-angle glaucoma: a European perspective

ABSTRACT

Objective: To compare the efficacy and cost implications of the use of the intraocular pressure-lowering prosta­glandin analogues bimatoprost, travoprost, and latano­prost as fixed-combination therapies with timolol, a β-adrenergic receptor antagonist.

Methods: A decision analytic cost-effectiveness model was constructed. Since no head-to-head studies comparing the three treatment options exist, the analysis was based on an indirect comparison. Hence, the model was based on efficacy data from five randomized, controlled, clinical studies. The studies were comparable with respect to study design, time horizon, patient population and type of end point presented. The measure of effectiveness was the percentage reduction of the intraocular pressure level from baseline. The cost evaluated was the cost of medication and clinical visits to the ophthalmologist. All drug costs were market prices inclusive of value-added tax, and visit costs were priced using official physician fees. Cost-effectiveness analyses were carried out in five European countries: Spain, Italy, United Kingdom, Norway and Sweden. The time horizon for the analyses was 3 months.

Results: The analysis showed that fixed-combination bimatoprost/timolol was more effective and less costly than fixed-combination travoprost/timolol and fixed-combination latanoprost/timolol in three out of the five countries analyzed. In two countries, bimatoprost/timolol was less costly than latanoprost/timolol, and cost the same as travoprost/timolol.

Conclusions: This cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the fixed combination of bimatoprost 0.03%/timolol 0.5% administered once daily was a cost-effective treatment option for patients with primary open-angle glaucoma. This study was limited by available clinical data: without a head-to-head trial, indirect comparisons were necessary. In the United Kingdom, Sweden, Norway, Italy, and Spain, from a health service viewpoint, bimatoprost/timolol was a slightly more effective as well as less costly treatment strategy when compared to both travoprost/timolol and latanoprost/timolol.     

A comparative study on the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of bimatoprost/timolol and dorzolamide/timolol combinations in glaucoma patients

Aim:

This study was designed to compare the bimatoprost/timolol combination and dorzolamide/timolol combination in glaucoma for efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness in a local population of Trichy in the state of Tamilnadu.

Materials and Methods:

Eight-week, randomized, parallel group, open-label study was conducted on 48 patients of open angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. After initial clinical assessment and baseline investigations, bimatoprost/timolol combination (Group A) was prescribed to 22 patients (2 patients lost after initial assessment) and dorzolamide/timolol combination (Group B) to 24 patients. The patients were reviewed after second and eighth weeks for cure rate and adverse drug reaction monitoring.

Results:

At the end of 8 weeks, the mean reduction in intraocular pressure from baseline was 13.04 mmHg (95% confidence interval (CI): 10.67–14.70) with bimatoprost/timolol combination once daily (P < 0.01) and 9.46 mmHg (95% CI: 7.47–10.5) with dorzolamide/timolol combination twice daily. Both the treatments were safe. Cost-effective range of bimatoprost/timolol combination was lower than that of dorzolamide/timolol combination.

Conclusion:

The fixed combination of bimatoprost/timolol was slightly more effective than that of dorzolamide/timolol combination in reducing IOP, and both treatments were generally well tolerated. Bimatoprost/timolol combination was more cost-effective (cost-effective analysis) than dorzolamide/timolol combination.     

Latanoprost : an update of its use in glaucoma and ocular hypertension

Latanoprost (Xalatan) is an ester analogue of prostaglandin F2alpha that reduces intraocular pressure (IOP) by increasing uveoscleral outflow. The IOP-lowering efficacy of latanoprost 0.005% lasts for up to 24 hours after a single topical dose, which allows for a once-daily dosage regimen. In patients with ocular hypertension or open-angle glaucoma, a single drop of latanoprost 0.005% solution (about 1.5 microg) administered topically once daily reduced diurnal IOP by 22 to 39% over 1 to 12 months' treatment in well-controlled trials; efficacy was maintained during treatment periods of up to 2 years. At this dosage, latanoprost was significantly more effective than timolol 0.5% twice daily in 3 of 4 large, double-blind, randomised studies, was generally as effective as bimatoprost or travoprost, and was significantly more effective than dorzolamide, brimonidine or unoprostone. Furthermore, in patients whose IOP was poorly controlled with timolol, switching to latanoprost monotherapy was at least as effective at lowering IOP as adding dorzolamide or pilocarpine to the regimen. Latanoprost has also shown significant additive effects when used in combination with one or more other glaucoma medications. The fixed combination of latanoprost plus timolol was significantly more effective than either of its individual components in two double-blind randomised studies and more effective than the fixed combination of dorzolamide and timolol in a 3-month, evaluator-masked study. Data in patients with angle-closure glaucoma are limited, but in patients with elevated IOP after undergoing iridotomy, latanoprost 0.005% once daily was significantly more effective than timolol 0.5% twice daily at reducing IOP over 12 weeks of treatment in a large double-blind, randomised study. Latanoprost is generally well tolerated and, unlike timolol, induces minimal systemic adverse events. In well-controlled, 6-month trials, the most commonly occurring drug-related ocular events in latanoprost recipients were mild to moderate conjunctival hyperaemia (3 to 15%) and iris colour change (2 to 9%); these seldom required patient withdrawal although the latter may be permanent. Latanoprost 0.005% as a single daily drop has shown good IOP-lowering efficacy in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension and does not produce the cardiopulmonary adverse effects associated with beta-blockers. Thus, latanoprost is a valuable addition to the first-line treatment options for patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. In addition, adjunctive treatment with latanoprost in patients who are refractory to beta-blocker therapy is a viable, second-line treatment option. Although preliminary findings are promising, wider clinical experience is required to define the place of latanoprost in the treatment of angle-closure glaucoma.     

An update on bimatoprost in glaucoma therapy

Bimatoprost, a prostamide, effectively lowers intraocular pressure (IOP) in patients with open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension. In clinical trials, bimatoprost has demonstrated superiority to the beta-adrenergic antagonist timolol and has consistently provided approximately 1-2 mmHg greater mean IOP lowering than the prostaglandin latanoprost. Bimatoprost is more effective than either timolol or latanoprost in allowing patients to reach the low target pressures that best protect the visual field. Patients on bimatoprost therapy achieve low pressures throughout the day and night. Moreover, 1-year trials have shown that the efficacy of bimatoprost is sustained with long-term use. The most common side effects have been conjunctival hyperaemia, graded as trace or mild, and eyelash growth. No safety concerns have arisen in postmarketing surveillance. Bimatoprost appears to be a valuable new agent for glaucoma therapy.     

An update on bimatoprost in glaucoma therapy

Bimatoprost, a prostamide, effectively lowers intraocular pressure (IOP) in patients with open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension. In clinical trials, bimatoprost has demonstrated superiority to the β-adrenergic antagonist timolol and has consistently provided ～ 1 – 2 mmHg greater mean IOP lowering than the prostaglandin latanoprost. Bimatoprost is more effective than either timolol or latanoprost in allowing patients to reach the low target pressures that best protect the visual field. Patients on bimatoprost therapy achieve low pressures throughout the day and night. Moreover, 1-year trials have shown that the efficacy of bimatoprost is sustained with long-term use. The most common side effects have been conjunctival hyperaemia, graded as trace or mild, and eyelash growth. No safety concerns have arisen in postmarketing surveillance. Bimatoprost appears to be a valuable new agent for glaucoma therapy.     

Cost-minimisation study of dorzolamide versus brinzolamide in the treatment of ocular hypertension and primary open-angle glaucoma: in four European countries

OBJECTIVE: Cost is an issue when prescribing two drugs with equivalent efficacy. We compared the direct medical costs of topical brinzolamide 1% (twice a day or three times daily) with topical dorzolamide 2% (twice a day or three times daily) in France, Italy, Portugal and Spain in patients with ocular hypertension or primary open-angle glaucoma. DESIGN AND SETTING: Three double-blind, controlled, randomised trials (with a study duration of 3 months) compared the response rate of brinzolamide twice a day or three times daily versus dorzolamide three times daily, and the response rate of brinzolamide-timolol twice a day versus a dorzolamide-timolol combination twice a day. A fourth double-blind randomised trial (with a duration of 12 months) compared brinzolamide twice a day and three times daily with timolol monotherapy. Local tolerance was compared in two dedicated studies. Rates of switching to a new medication regimen were evaluated through a US health maintenance organisation database. In case of treatment failure, the patients were treated with latanoprost. A model was developed to value direct medical costs over 3 months. The economic perspective was that of the third-party payer and the patient, and included direct medical costs (reimbursed part plus co-payment). PATIENTS: Patients with ocular hypertension and/or primary open-angle glaucoma who had not responded to or could not tolerate beta-blocker therapy. OUTCOME MEASURE: The daily direct medical costs of therapy with the two drugs. RESULTS: As monotherapy, brinzolamide twice daily and three times daily was found to be as efficacious as dorzolamide three times a day. Brinzolamide twice daily plus timolol was also as efficacious as a combination of dorzolamide and timolol twice a day. Stinging of the eye upon instillation with brinzolamide was experienced by fewer patients than with dorzolamide (p < 0.0001). The likelihood of patients treated with dorzolamide changing therapy was 1.28 times greater than that for those treated with brinzolamide. The size of the brinzolamide drop is 18.7% smaller than that of dorzolamide allowing seven more therapy days per bottle with brinzolamide twice daily than with dorzolamide monotherapy, and five more days when brinzolamide is used three times a day. The direct medical costs for patients treated with brinzolamide were lower in all four European countries when drop size was taken into account than for those treated with dorzolamide. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of our findings. CONCLUSION: Because brinzolamide can be prescribed twice daily in monotherapy and because fewer patients treated with brinzolamide switch therapy due to local intolerance, our model suggests that brinzolamide is a cost-saving alternative to dorzolamide.     

Topical dorzolamide 2%/timolol 0.5%: a review of its use in the treatment of open-angle glaucoma

The nonselective beta-blocker timolol and the carbonic anhydrase inhibitor dorzolamide both lower intraocular pressure (IOP). Timolol and dorzolamide have different mechanisms of action and their effects are additive when administered together. Therefore, the 2 drugs are frequently used concomitantly to treat patients with open-angle glaucoma who have not adequately responded to first-line therapy. A barrier to good compliance with concomitant therapy is the need to administer 5 or 6 drops of medication on 2 or 4 occasions during the day. Timolol 0.5% and dorzolamide 2.0% have therefore been combined in a single formulation, reducing the number of administrations required to 2 per day. Clinical trials in patients with glaucoma have demonstrated that dorzolamide 2%/timolol 0.5% (dorzolamide/timolol) is superior to monotherapy with the individual components. When dorzolamide/timolol administered twice daily was compared with concomitant treatment with dorzolamide 2% and timolol 0.5%, each administered twice daily for 90 days, both regimens resulted in marked lowering of trough IOP (measured just before the morning dose) compared with baseline (reduction in IOP = 4.2mm Hg). The effect of the 2 regimens on IOP at all time points, both before treatment and at peak effect (2 hours after treatment), were virtually indistinguishable. When the combined formulation was compared with a concomitant regimen that included dorzolamide 2% 3 times daily and timolol 0.5% twice daily the concomitant regimen was slightly more efficacious than the combined regimen at trough after 90 days: IOP was lowered by 3.6mm Hg in the combined group versus 4.1 mm Hg in the concomitant group. Dorzolamide/timolol has been compared with concomitant administration of timolol 0.5% and the IOP lowering miotic drug, pilocarpine 2.0%. This non-blind patient-preference study found that both regimens reduced IOP. However, the dorzolamide/timolol combination was preferred by the patients because of reduced frequency and severity of adverse effects and less frequent administration. Dorzolamide/timolol was well tolerated in clinical trials, the adverse effects reflected those of the individual components, and no additional tolerability issues were identified. However, the potential for timolol to cause cardiorespiratory effects must be considered when prescribing this combination. Furthermore, dorzolamide is a sulfonamide and can cause allergic reactions in those who are hypersensitive to this class of drug. CONCLUSIONS: Dorzolamide/timolol is a well tolerated and effective fixed combination for lowering IOP in the treatment of open-angle glaucoma and is likely to be useful in those patients who do not respond adequately to first-line monotherapy. Compared with concomitant therapy with the same 2 drugs the primary advantage is convenience, which may lead to improved compliance. Studies of compliance and comparisons with other currently available combination therapies would be useful to fully define the value of the formulation. Nonetheless, dorzolamide combined with timolol in a single applicator system will be a useful addition to the treatment options for glaucoma, a leading cause of preventable blindness.     

贝美前列素治疗原发性开角型青光眼和高眼压症的最小成本分析

目的：对贝关前列素滴眼液与同类对照药物拉坦前列素滴眼液治疗原发性开角型青光眼和高眼压症进行药物经济学评价。方法：应用最小成本分析,对参加多中心临床试验医院采用回顾性调查收集费用数据并进行测算。结果：从药物费用上比较两药6周费用之差33．52—35．28元,从6个月诊疗总费用上看,贝美前列素滴眼液的诊疗费用439．6-918．3元,拉坦前列素滴眼液的诊疗费680．8～1062．0元,诊疗总费用在四个地区情况均为贝美前列素低于拉坦前列素。结论：贝美前列素滴眼液治疗相比于拉坦前列素治疗是经济的治疗方案,值得推荐应用。     

Analytic review of bimatoprost, latanoprost and travoprost in primary open angle glaucoma

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review was to evaluate different measures of efficacy of the intraocular pressure (IOP) lowering lipid class agents bimatoprost, latanoprost and travoprost in the treatment of primary open angle glaucoma. Study arms of timolol in trials including the above mentioned lipid class drugs were also included. METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for randomized clinical trials including one or more of the lipid class drugs bimatoprost, latanoprost and travoprost. The study results were pooled, and the simple, weighted IOP-lowering efficacy was compared among the lipid class drugs and timolol, where data were available. Efficacy parameters were reviewed, including mean reduction of IOP and percentage of patients achieving different levels of IOP. RESULTS: 161 articles were identified of which 42 were included in the analysis. A total of 9295 patients participated in the included trials. Based on all studies, timolol on average had a weighted mean IOP reduction of 22.2%, while latanoprost, travoprost and bimatoprost had a weighted mean IOP reduction of 26.7%, 28.7% and 30.3%, respectively. Analysis of target achievement to various IOP levels shows that bimatoprost seems more efficacious than latanoprost. The direct comparisons (head-to-head studies) also show that bimatoprost is the most efficacious treatment, however it is not conclusive whether latanoprost or travoprost is better in reducing IOP. CONCLUSIONS: This review shows that bimatoprost seems to be the most efficacious treatment in lowering IOP. Head-to-head studies confirm this.     

Analytic review of bimatoprost,latanoprost and travoprost in primary open angle glaucoma

ABSTRACT

Objective: The objective of this review was to evaluate different measures of efficacy of the intraocular pressure (IOP) lowering lipid class agents bimatoprost, latanoprost and travoprost in the treatment of primary open angle glaucoma. Study arms of timolol in trials including the above mentioned lipid class drugs were also included.

Methods: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for randomized clinical trials including one or more of the lipid class drugs bimatoprost, latanoprost and travoprost. The study results were pooled, and the simple, weighted IOP-lowering efficacy was compared among the lipid class drugs and timolol, where data were available. Efficacy parameters were reviewed, including mean reduction of IOP and percentage of patients achieving different levels of IOP.

Results: 161 articles were identified of which 42 were included in the analysis. A total of 9295 patients participated in the included trials. Based on all studies, timolol on average had a weighted mean IOP reduction of 22.2%, while latanoprost, travoprost and bimatoprost had a weighted mean IOP reduction of 26.7%, 28.7% and 30.3%, respectively. Analysis of target achievement to various IOP levels shows that bimatoprost seems more efficacious than latanoprost. The direct comparisons (head-to-head studies) also show that bimatoprost is the most efficacious treatment, however it is not conclusive whether latanoprost or travoprost is better in reducing IOP.

Conclusions: This review shows that bimatoprost seems to be the most efficacious treatment in lowering IOP. Head-to-head studies confirm this.     

Topical dorzolamide 2%/timolol 0.5% ophthalmic solution: a review of its use in the treatment of glaucoma and ocular hypertension

Topically administered dorzolamide 2%/timolol 0.5% (dorzolamide/timolol ophthalmic solution; Cosopt) is a fixed combination of two ocular hypotensive drugs (the carbonic anhydrase inhibitor dorzolamide and the beta-adrenoceptor antagonist timolol) that have an additive effect on lowering intraocular pressure (IOP) when administered together. This product is indicated for the treatment of elevated IOP in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension (OH) who are insufficiently responsive to topical beta-adrenoceptor antagonist monotherapy. As such, it can be considered for use in individuals who, as a consequence of failing to achieve target IOP with beta-adrenoceptor antagonist monotherapy, require the addition or substitution of another class of topical antiglaucoma medication. Clinical trials have demonstrated that dorzolamide/timolol (1 drop per eye twice daily) is an effective and generally well tolerated fixed combination for lowering IOP in patients with open angle glaucoma or OH, including individuals uncontrolled on beta-adrenoceptor antagonist monotherapy. Compared with concomitant therapy with the individual components, the primary advantage of fixed combination dorzolamide/timolol is convenience.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of iStent trabecular micro-bypass stent for patients with open-angle glaucoma in Colombia

Objective: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of trabecular micro bypass stent vs laser trabeculoplasty or medications only, for patients with open-angle glaucoma in a setting of the Colombian System Health.

Methods: This is a cost-effectiveness analysis that based its assumptions in external data sources, used to extrapolate the quality-of-life related to health, survival, and costs. A Markov model, with stages from 0 (ocular hypertension without glaucoma) to 5 and bilateral blindness, was developed inclusive of Colombians older than 40 years in 2018, from a societal perspective, comparing trabecular micro-bypass stents vs laser trabeculoplasty, timolol?+?dorzolamide?+?brimonidine, timolol?+?dorzolamide?+?latanoprost, or timolol?+?dorzolamide?+?brimatoprost, in terms of clinical and economic outcomes over a lifetime horizon. Both costs and health outcomes had an annual rate discount of 5%. Health outcomes were evaluated in terms of QALYs related with loss of visual acuity. Trabecular micro-bypass costs include the joint use of timolol, and the costs of laser trabeculoplasty include the combined use of timolol?+?dorzolamide.

Results: Trabecular micro-bypass stents were estimated to have 127,971 more discounted QALYs vs laser trabeculoplasty; 405,982 vs timolol?+?dorzolamide?+?brimonidine; and 378,287 vs timolol?+?dorzolamide?+?latanoprost or timolol?+?dorzolamide?+?brimatoprost. Cumulative costs with trabecular micro-bypass stents at 40 years was $13,252,318 lower than laser trabeculoplasty; $6,403,534, lower than timolol?+?dorzolamide?+?brimonidine; $22,311,064, lower than timolol?+?dorzolamide?+?latanoprost; and $29,156,113 lower than timolol?+?dorzolamide?+?brimatoprost.

Conclusions: The trabecular micro-bypass stent is a highly cost-saving strategy due to more QALYs related to a lower rate of the population with loss of visual acuity in the long-term, and because the costs associated with additional medications and complications are lower with trabecular micro-bypass stents.     

Timolol + latanoprost: new preparation. Last-resort eye drops

(1) First-line drug treatment of chronic open-angle glaucoma or intraocular hypertonia is based on monotherapy with timolol eye drops. Patients in whom several single-agent treatments have failed can use combinations of timolol + dorzolamide (a carbonic anhydrase inhibitor) or a betablocker + pilocarpine (a parasympathomimetic agent). (2) An eye-drop preparation is now available in which 0.5% timolol is combined with 0.005% latanoprost, a prostaglandin F2alpha analogue. (3) A clinical trial indicated that the timolol + latanoprost combination was more effective than the timolol + dorzolamide combination on intraocular pressure, but the report of this study is too scanty to accept these results at face value. Once-a-day dosing with timolol + latanoprost has not been compared with a betablocker + pilocarpine combination. (4) Patients using the timolol + latanoprost combination are exposed to the adverse effects of both latanoprost (especially ocular irritation and brown iris discoloration) and the betablocker. (5) It is not known whether the once-a-day dosing of the timolol + latanoprost combination is a significant advantage, especially in terms of adherence to treatment. (6) In practice, the arrival of the timolol + latanoprost combination changes virtually nothing for patients with chronic open-angle glaucoma, except for those with no other alternative.