Balancing efficacy and tolerability of prostaglandin analogues and prostaglandin-timolol fixed combinations in primary open-angle glaucoma.

BACKGROUND: Lowering intraocular pressure (IOP) is currently the only therapeutic approach that preserves visual function in primary open-angle glaucoma. In making treatment decisions for first- and second-line therapy, the clinician needs to provide an appropriate balance of efficacy and tolerability. Prostaglandin analogues (PGAs) are frequently used as first-line monotherapy, because of their efficacy and low risk of systemic side effects. Similarly, PGA-based fixed combinations are frequently used in patients who progress or fail to achieve the target IOP. SCOPE: We have reviewed the literature on the management of primary open-angle glaucoma with PGAs, both as monotherapies and in fixed combinations. FINDINGS: In the clinical trial and meta-analysis data identified, bimatoprost 0.03% seems to be associated with a greater overall ability to lower IOP compared with latanoprost, travoprost or tafluprost, at the cost of a slightly higher incidence of conjunctival hyperaemia. Studies indicate that patients' adherence to treatment is generally better with PGAs than with many other monotherapies. In patients requiring more than one IOP-lowering agent, fixed combination treatments may provide improved adherence and tolerability benefits compared with concomitant use of individual treatments. Bimatoprost/timolol fixed combination appears to be slightly more efficacious than latanoprost/timolol or travoprost/timolol, and tolerability differences between the fixed combinations appear to be slight, probably because the addition of timolol to the PGA component lessens the associated hyperaemia. Surveys on EU physician attitudes appear largely in line with these clinical data. CONCLUSION: An appropriate balance between efficacy and tolerability ensures optimum IOP lowering and reduces the risk of non-adherence. PGAs largely fulfil this need as monotherapies and as components of combinations.

Hyperemia-associated costs of medication changes in glaucoma patients treated initially with prostaglandin analogs.

AIMS: To develop a model to estimate and compare the cost of changing therapy due to hyperemia in glaucoma patients treated initially either with latanoprost, bimatoprost, or travoprost monotherapy. METHODS: Data collected from the HealthCore Integrated Research Database, as part of the Glaucoma Adherence and Persistency Study (GAPS), were used to populate the model. Patients with a documented diagnosis of glaucoma who were newly treated (no ocular hypotensive medication and no glaucoma-related procedure during 6 months before first prescription) with latanoprost, bimatoprost, or travoprost monotherapy were identified. The time horizon for the base-case model was the duration of chart abstraction (mean = 4.1 years); a 3-month model also was developed. Physician-reported rates of hyperemia were obtained from chart reviews of 300 patients. Transition rates reflected events related to reports of hyperemia where a physician-driven change (switch or discontinuation) in therapy was documented. The per-patient direct cost (2008) due to hyperemia-driven change in therapy was calculated as the sum of the cost of the initial prescription plus the cost of the office visit where the patient was evaluated and the decision to change therapy was made. Costs were stratified by whether patients were hyperemia free or discontinued the initial therapy due to hyperemia. RESULTS: From the sample of 13,977 newly treated patients, 8,743 patients were started on a prostaglandin monotherapy only. Of these, 5,726 received latanoprost, 1,633 were treated with bimatoprost, and 1,384 received travoprost index monotherapy. Across all treatment groups, costs among hyperemia-free patients were US$73.67 versus US$140.02 for those who discontinued the initial prostaglandin due to hyperemia. Per-patient costs were lowest in the group treated initially with latanoprost. For the base-case model, with latanoprost as the reference, total per-patient incremental costs due to hyperemia-driven change in therapy were US$5.92 for bimatoprost and US$5.43 for travoprost. Results were not highly sensitive to increases either in the incidence of hyperemia among latanoprost-treated patients or in the cost of latanoprost. CONCLUSIONS: Hyperemia results in increased overall costs in patients treated with latanoprost, bimatoprost, and travoprost. Treatment with latanoprost is associated with lower hyperemia-related costs than treatment with bimatoprost or travoprost.