ABSTRACT
Objective: To compare the effectiveness and associated costs of travoprost versus a fixed combination of dorzolamide + timolol as first-line therapy for glaucoma according to data collected by the United Kingdom General Practitioner Research Database (UK‐GPRD).
Methods: Patients with a diagnosis of ocular hypertension, glaucoma, or who had been treated topically by surgery or laser therapy were selected. Patients starting first-line treatment with travoprost or a fixed dorzolamide + timolol combination were included. Times to treatment failure were compared with an adjusted Cox model.
Main outcome measures: Cost and treatment failure defined as a prescription change (adding or removing a topical treatment, or initiating laser therapy or surgery).
Results: 56 612 patients were extracted from the database and 39 808 patients received at least one topical prescription for IOP-lowering (intraocular pressure) therapy. Of these, 639 were treated with travoprost and 387 with dorzolamide + timolol, as first-line therapies. No significant difference was found between patient characteristics. Patients were aged 70.0 years and 48.5% were male. At 1 year, treatment failure was experienced by 30.4% of patients receiving travoprost and 49.4% receiving dorzolamide + timolol ( p < 0.001). The hazard ratio for failure was 0.79 ( p < 0.03) less with travoprost, after adjusting on age, gender, comorbidities and duration of follow-up. Adjusted annual costs of glaucoma management were significantly ( p < 0.001) lower with travoprost (£198.31) than with dorzolamide + timolol (£312.21).
Conclusion: This retrospective costs and consequences analysis study showed that travoprost is more efficient than dorzolamide + timolol as first-line therapy for glaucoma patients. Patients continued longer with first-line treatment when prescribed travoprost at a lower cost.Introduction
* The results of this study were presented at the 9th Annual Congress of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR), 29–31st October 2006, Copenhagen, Denmark
* The results of this study were presented at the 9th Annual Congress of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR), 29–31st October 2006, Copenhagen, Denmark
Notes
* The results of this study were presented at the 9th Annual Congress of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR), 29–31st October 2006, Copenhagen, Denmark