ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Effective control of intraocular pressure is predicated upon patient compliance with pharmacotherapy. We compared patient adherence and persistence with two new ocular hypotensive formulations, using real-world utilization data. METHODS: This observational cohort study employed pharmacy claims data from the Source(®) Lx (Wolters Kluwer Pharma Solutions) database. Patients with an initial (index) prescription for topical bimatoprost 0.01% or travoprost Z (April to June 2011) and no claim for ophthalmic prostaglandin or prostamide analogs within the previous 18 months were identified. Treatment adherence was expressed as proportion of days covered with study medication during the first 365 days after the index prescription. Treatment persistence with study medication was assessed over the first 12 months using Kaplan-Meier survival analyses, allowing a maximum 30-day gap for prescription refill. Treatment status was determined monthly over this period. RESULTS: A total of 12,985 patients were assessed for treatment adherence, and 10,470 for treatment persistence. Adherence was better with bimatoprost 0.01% than with travoprost Z (mean proportion of days covered 0.540 versus [vs] 0.486, P<0.001), and more patients showed high adherence (proportion of days covered >0.80) with bimatoprost 0.01% than travoprost Z (29.1% vs 22.3%, P<0.001). Continuous 12-month persistence was higher with bimatoprost 0.01% than with travoprost Z (29.5% vs 24.2%, P<0.001). At month 12, more patients were on treatment with bimatoprost 0.01% than travoprost Z (48.8% vs 45.7%, P<0.01). Similar findings were demonstrated in cohorts of ocular hypotensive treatment-naïve patients, branded latanoprost switchers, and older patients (age ≥65 years), and after inclusion of patient characteristics as covariates. CONCLUSION: For patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension, bimatoprost 0.01% offers compliance advantages over travoprost Z.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To compare patient adherence and persistence with bimatoprost 0.01%, a new formulation that offers equivalent intraocular pressure-lowering efficacy to bimatoprost 0.03% and improved tolerability, with that of the original bimatoprost 0.03% formulation. METHODS: Pharmacy claims from a longitudinal database of prescription and medical claims for >115 million patients were analyzed. Patients with an initial (index) prescription for bimatoprost 0.01% or 0.03% between April and June 2011, and with no claim for ophthalmic prostaglandin or prostamide analogs during the preceding 18 months, were identified. Treatment adherence was expressed as the proportion of days covered (PDC) with study medication over the first 365 days after the index prescription. Treatment persistence over the first 12 months following the index prescription was assessed using Kaplan-Meier analyses, assuming a 30 day grace period for prescription refill. Treatment status (on/off study medication) was determined monthly for 12 months post-index. RESULTS: In total, 6150 patients were assessed for treatment adherence and 7660 for persistence. Adherence was significantly better with bimatoprost 0.01% than bimatoprost 0.03% (mean PDC 0.540 vs. 0.438; p < 0.001). Significantly more patients had high adherence (PDC > 0.80) with bimatoprost 0.01% than 0.03% (29.1% vs. 17.3%; p < 0.001). Persistence was also significantly better with bimatoprost 0.01%, with 29.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 28.3%, 30.8%) versus 18.3% (95% CI: 16.8%, 19.9%) of patients remaining on continuous treatment for 12 months (p < 0.001). At 12 months, significantly more patients were 'on treatment' (continuing/restarting treatment) with bimatoprost 0.01% than 0.03% (48.8% vs. 33.9%; p < 0.001). Sensitivity analyses demonstrated similar findings in cohorts of ocular hypotensive treatment-naïve and elderly (≥65 years) patients. CONCLUSIONS: Bimatoprost 0.01% offers adherence and persistency advantages over bimatoprost 0.03% in patients requiring ocular hypotensive therapy. Study limitations included the observational design, lack of control for imbalances in patient characteristics, and assumption that prescription refill is synonymous with medication use.
