ABSTRACT
@#OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to calculate and compare the costs of different brands of ocular hypotensive eye drops available in the Philippines. METHODS: This was a single-center research conducted at a local laboratory. Triplicate samples of 21 different brands of locally-available ocular hypotensive drops were tested. The mass of ten drops, total usable mass, number of drops per bottle, and mass of 200-µL aliquots were measured for each sample. These were used to calculate for the total usable bottle volume, drop volume, and number of drops per milliliter of each sample. Lastly, the daily, monthly, and annual costs were computed and compared. RESULTS: Available brands of β-blockers were the most affordable options for topical glaucoma therapy, with costs ranging from Php1,838 to 8,472 per year. Innovator brands of α-agonists and carbonic anhydrase inhibitors were the most expensive, with annual costs ranging from Php7,641 to 24,295 and Php7,361 to 25,327, respectively. Fixed-combination preparations, with yearly costs ranging from Php4,307 to 22,200, were generally more costeffective than individual preparations. The cost of topical anti-glaucoma therapy can amount up to 3.3 to 66.9% of a minimum-wage earner’s annual income depending on the number and combination of drugs being used. CONCLUSIONS: The price range of ocular hypotensive eye drops available in the Philippines is wide. Cost of therapy is an important consideration for patients who acquire medications through out-of-pocket expenditure. Optimization of bottle designs and volumes is crucial to maximize the cost-effectiveness of eye drop solutions. Information on the cost of therapy should be available to both patients and physicians.
Subject(s)
Glaucoma , Tetrahymenina , Eye , Ophthalmic Solutions , Costs and Cost AnalysisABSTRACT
@#OBJECTIVES: To compare the rate of progression of visual field loss in mean defect (MD) decibels (dB)/year in primary open angle glaucoma (POAG) versus primary angle closure glaucoma (PACG) patients managed in a tertiary hospital and to assess the impact of baseline age, baseline MD, and intraocular pressure (IOP) on the rate of progression of visual field loss. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of medical records of patients who were seen at the Glaucoma Clinic of a tertiary hospital from August to October 2018. The following data were recorded: diagnosis, number of reliable automated visual fields (AVFs), number of years followed, baseline age, baseline MD, MD of all subsequent AVFs, IOP at the time of each test, and IOP-lowering interventions. Rate of visual field progression expressed in dB/year was calculated using linear regression analysis. T–test was done to compare the baseline data and rates of progression of visual field loss between the POAG and PACG cohorts. Correlation using Pearson’s r and multivariate analyses were performed to evaluate the effect of baseline age, baseline MD, and IOP on rate of progression of visual field loss. RESULTS: The mean rates of progression of visual field loss in POAG and PACG eyes were 0.12 ± 0.68 dB/year and 0.10 ± 0.59 dB/year, respectively (p=0.8525). Despite treatment, 4.35% of the study eyes were identified as fast progressors while 1.09% were catastrophic progressors. In the POAG group (n=33), laser treatment was negatively correlated with rate of progression of visual field loss (r= -0.5072, p=0.0026). Multivariate analysis showed that baseline MD (p=0.017), mean IOP on follow–up (p=0.020), and laser treatment (p=0.004) were significant factorsaffecting the rate of progression of visual field loss in POAG eyes. In the PACG group (n=59), both baseline MD (r= -0.2798, p=0.0318) and mean IOP on follow–up (r= 0.368, p=0.0041) correlated with rate of progression of visual field loss. Only mean IOP on follow–up was found to be significant on multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: While most glaucoma patients managed in a tertiary hospital have a slow rate of progression of visual field loss, a few were still identified as fast and catastrophic progressors. Factors associated with rate of progression of visual field loss were baseline MD, mean IOP on follow–up, and laser treatment for POAG, and mean IOP on follow–up for PACG.