RESUMO
PURPOSE: To perform patient preference-based comparative effectiveness and cost-utility (cost-effectiveness) analyses to evaluate topical bimatoprost 0.01%, latanoprost 0.005%, travoprost 0.004%, tafluprost 0.0015%, and timolol 0.5% for the treatment of open-angle glaucoma (OAG). METHODS: Value-Based Medicine®, incremental cost-utility analysis, and average cost-utility analysis were performed using published systematic review and network meta-analyses with 3-month clinical data for a base case of OAG with an untreated intraocular pressure of 26 mm Hg. Visual acuity and visual field changes were converted to time tradeoff utility format. A 20-year model was undertaken; bilateral therapy was presumed; a national average Medicare Fee Schedule was used; and ophthalmic, third party insurer, and societal cost perspectives were utilized. Patient value outcomes (QALYs or quality-adjusted life-years) and costs were discounted at 3% annually. RESULTS: Bimatoprost conferred a mean 2.56 QALY gain (22.9% patient quality-of-life gain) for the average OAG patient, while latanoprost for the average OAG patient, while latanoprost conferred a 2.00 QALY gain (17.8% quality-of-life gain), tafluprost a 1.99 QALY gain (17.9% quality-of-life gain), travoprost a l.92 QALY gain (17.2% quality-of-life gain), and timolol a 1.42 QALY gain (12.8% quality-of-life gain). The ophthalmic cost-perspective, incremental cost-utility ratio of bimatoprost referent to travoprost was $6,034/QALY, to latanoprost was $27,973/QALY, and to timolol was $16,063/QALY. Bimatoprost dominated tafluprost, meaning that it conferred greater patient value for lesser cost than tafluprost. CONCLUSIONS: Topical bimatoprost delivers greater patient value than the other prostamides and topical timolol for the treatment of OAG. Bimatoprost is incrementally cost-effective referent to the other prostamides and timolol.
