Travoprost versus latanoprost combinations in glaucoma

Economic evaluation based on visual field deficit progression

Jordana K. Schmier, Michael Halpern, David W. Covert, Alan L. Robin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: Changes in intraocular pressure (IOP) are known to be related to visual field deficit progression, although multiple models of this relationship exist. In addition, visual functioning is known to affect medical costs. The objective of this study was to project visual field deficit progression and subsequent costs based on clinical trial data. Research design and methods: Using data from a randomized, 12-month, double-masked study, we compared the use of a fixed combination of travoprost 0.004%/timolol 0.5% (T/T) versus a fixed combination of latanoprost 0.005%/timolol 0.5% (L/T) on visual field deficit progression and associated costs. We applied published algorithms linking IOP to visual field changes to calculate the likelihood of visual field deterioration by treatment group. Differences in medical care costs were estimated using guideline-recommended practice patterns, Medicare hospital costs, and published estimates of differences in hospitalization by visual functioning. Main outcome measures: Increase in visual field deficit progression rates, increase in annual hospital days per subject, and increase in annual hospital, outpatient, and total costs per subject. Results: Predicted visual field deficit progression for T/T patients was less than that for L/T patients (not statistically significant). Projected annual medical care costs were $43 lower for T/T vs. L/T patients. Conclusions: By applying published algorithms linking IOP to visual field changes, this study projected long-term visual field deficit and associated costs. Use of a fixed travoprost/timolol solution may lead to less long-term visual field deficit progression and lower annual medical care costs than a fixed latanoprost/timolol solution. Discussion: The use of clinical trial data may limit the applicability of these findings. However, this analysis of direct medical costs only is likely a conservative estimate of the costs associated with visual field deficits.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1737-1743
Number of pages7
JournalCurrent Medical Research and Opinion
Volume22
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 2006
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

latanoprost
Visual Fields
Glaucoma
Timolol
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Costs and Cost Analysis
Intraocular Pressure
Health Care Costs
Travoprost
Clinical Trials

Keywords

  • Costs and cost analysis
  • Disease progression
  • Glaucoma, open-angle
  • Health care costs
  • Visual fields

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Travoprost versus latanoprost combinations in glaucoma : Economic evaluation based on visual field deficit progression. / Schmier, Jordana K.; Halpern, Michael; Covert, David W.; Robin, Alan L.

In: Current Medical Research and Opinion, Vol. 22, No. 9, 09.2006, p. 1737-1743.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{b0d05993b1e44e2e86c1eacb9edb49a3,
title = "Travoprost versus latanoprost combinations in glaucoma: Economic evaluation based on visual field deficit progression",
abstract = "Objective: Changes in intraocular pressure (IOP) are known to be related to visual field deficit progression, although multiple models of this relationship exist. In addition, visual functioning is known to affect medical costs. The objective of this study was to project visual field deficit progression and subsequent costs based on clinical trial data. Research design and methods: Using data from a randomized, 12-month, double-masked study, we compared the use of a fixed combination of travoprost 0.004{\%}/timolol 0.5{\%} (T/T) versus a fixed combination of latanoprost 0.005{\%}/timolol 0.5{\%} (L/T) on visual field deficit progression and associated costs. We applied published algorithms linking IOP to visual field changes to calculate the likelihood of visual field deterioration by treatment group. Differences in medical care costs were estimated using guideline-recommended practice patterns, Medicare hospital costs, and published estimates of differences in hospitalization by visual functioning. Main outcome measures: Increase in visual field deficit progression rates, increase in annual hospital days per subject, and increase in annual hospital, outpatient, and total costs per subject. Results: Predicted visual field deficit progression for T/T patients was less than that for L/T patients (not statistically significant). Projected annual medical care costs were $43 lower for T/T vs. L/T patients. Conclusions: By applying published algorithms linking IOP to visual field changes, this study projected long-term visual field deficit and associated costs. Use of a fixed travoprost/timolol solution may lead to less long-term visual field deficit progression and lower annual medical care costs than a fixed latanoprost/timolol solution. Discussion: The use of clinical trial data may limit the applicability of these findings. However, this analysis of direct medical costs only is likely a conservative estimate of the costs associated with visual field deficits.",
keywords = "Costs and cost analysis, Disease progression, Glaucoma, open-angle, Health care costs, Visual fields",
author = "Schmier, {Jordana K.} and Michael Halpern and Covert, {David W.} and Robin, {Alan L.}",
year = "2006",
month = "9",
doi = "10.1185/030079906X121011",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "22",
pages = "1737--1743",
journal = "Current Medical Research and Opinion",
issn = "0300-7995",
publisher = "Informa Healthcare",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Travoprost versus latanoprost combinations in glaucoma

T2 - Economic evaluation based on visual field deficit progression

AU - Schmier, Jordana K.

AU - Halpern, Michael

AU - Covert, David W.

AU - Robin, Alan L.

PY - 2006/9

Y1 - 2006/9

N2 - Objective: Changes in intraocular pressure (IOP) are known to be related to visual field deficit progression, although multiple models of this relationship exist. In addition, visual functioning is known to affect medical costs. The objective of this study was to project visual field deficit progression and subsequent costs based on clinical trial data. Research design and methods: Using data from a randomized, 12-month, double-masked study, we compared the use of a fixed combination of travoprost 0.004%/timolol 0.5% (T/T) versus a fixed combination of latanoprost 0.005%/timolol 0.5% (L/T) on visual field deficit progression and associated costs. We applied published algorithms linking IOP to visual field changes to calculate the likelihood of visual field deterioration by treatment group. Differences in medical care costs were estimated using guideline-recommended practice patterns, Medicare hospital costs, and published estimates of differences in hospitalization by visual functioning. Main outcome measures: Increase in visual field deficit progression rates, increase in annual hospital days per subject, and increase in annual hospital, outpatient, and total costs per subject. Results: Predicted visual field deficit progression for T/T patients was less than that for L/T patients (not statistically significant). Projected annual medical care costs were $43 lower for T/T vs. L/T patients. Conclusions: By applying published algorithms linking IOP to visual field changes, this study projected long-term visual field deficit and associated costs. Use of a fixed travoprost/timolol solution may lead to less long-term visual field deficit progression and lower annual medical care costs than a fixed latanoprost/timolol solution. Discussion: The use of clinical trial data may limit the applicability of these findings. However, this analysis of direct medical costs only is likely a conservative estimate of the costs associated with visual field deficits.

AB - Objective: Changes in intraocular pressure (IOP) are known to be related to visual field deficit progression, although multiple models of this relationship exist. In addition, visual functioning is known to affect medical costs. The objective of this study was to project visual field deficit progression and subsequent costs based on clinical trial data. Research design and methods: Using data from a randomized, 12-month, double-masked study, we compared the use of a fixed combination of travoprost 0.004%/timolol 0.5% (T/T) versus a fixed combination of latanoprost 0.005%/timolol 0.5% (L/T) on visual field deficit progression and associated costs. We applied published algorithms linking IOP to visual field changes to calculate the likelihood of visual field deterioration by treatment group. Differences in medical care costs were estimated using guideline-recommended practice patterns, Medicare hospital costs, and published estimates of differences in hospitalization by visual functioning. Main outcome measures: Increase in visual field deficit progression rates, increase in annual hospital days per subject, and increase in annual hospital, outpatient, and total costs per subject. Results: Predicted visual field deficit progression for T/T patients was less than that for L/T patients (not statistically significant). Projected annual medical care costs were $43 lower for T/T vs. L/T patients. Conclusions: By applying published algorithms linking IOP to visual field changes, this study projected long-term visual field deficit and associated costs. Use of a fixed travoprost/timolol solution may lead to less long-term visual field deficit progression and lower annual medical care costs than a fixed latanoprost/timolol solution. Discussion: The use of clinical trial data may limit the applicability of these findings. However, this analysis of direct medical costs only is likely a conservative estimate of the costs associated with visual field deficits.

KW - Costs and cost analysis

KW - Disease progression

KW - Glaucoma, open-angle

KW - Health care costs

KW - Visual fields

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33749032830&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33749032830&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1185/030079906X121011

DO - 10.1185/030079906X121011

M3 - Article

VL - 22

SP - 1737

EP - 1743

JO - Current Medical Research and Opinion

JF - Current Medical Research and Opinion

SN - 0300-7995

IS - 9

ER -