title: Cost effectiveness of travoprost versus a fixed combination of latanoprost/timolol in patients with ocular hypertension or glaucoma: analysis based on the UK general practitioner research database.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  This study aimed to compare the cost effectiveness of travoprost versus a fixed combination of latanoprost/timolol as first-line therapies for ocular hypertension or glaucoma.
  
  
  METHODS
  Patient charts were extracted from the UK General Practitioner Research Database. Patients with ocular hypertension or glaucoma who received first-line treatment with either travoprost or latanoprost/timolol and were followed up for >6 months were included. Treatment failure was defined as a treatment change or a glaucoma intervention (laser therapy or surgery). Time to treatment failure was compared using a Cox model and adjusted by the propensity score method.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Eligible patients received either travoprost (n=639) or latanoprost/timolol (n=176). Their mean age was 70 years at diagnosis and 48.2% of patients were male. Patient characteristics did not differ significantly between treatment groups. Treatment failure rates at 1 year were 31.3% (travoprost) and 39.4% (latanoprost/timolol) and yielded a hazard ratio for failure in favour of travoprost (0.75; p<0.04) after adjusting for age, sex, co-morbidities and duration of follow-up. Adjusted annual costs of glaucoma management were significantly (p<0.001) less with travoprost (pound215.86) than with latanoprost/timolol (pound327.83).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  In everyday practice, travoprost was maintained longer than latanoprost/timolol as first-line therapy for glaucoma. The mean daily costs of travoprost were 50.8% less per patient than those of latanoprost/timolol. Despite adjustments, these results might be confounded, at least partially, by disease severity.
authors.affiliation: U.O. Oculistica di Monselice, Padova, Italy.
authors.forename: Renato
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: De Natale
authors.forename: Antoine
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Lafuma
authors.forename: Gilles
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Berdeaux
mesh_terms: D000368:Aged; D000959:Antihypertensive Agents / Q000191:economics* / Q000627:therapeutic use; D003008:Cloprostenol / Q000031:analogs & derivatives* / Q000191:economics / Q000627:therapeutic use; D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D016208:Databases, Factual; D004338:Drug Combinations; D005260:Female; D005901:Glaucoma / Q000188:drug therapy / Q000191:economics; D006801:Humans; D000077338:Latanoprost; D008297:Male; D009798:Ocular Hypertension / Q000188:drug therapy / Q000191:economics*; D009883:Ophthalmic Solutions; D010821:Physicians, Family; D011461:Prostaglandins F, Synthetic / Q000191:economics* / Q000627:therapeutic use; D013999:Timolol / Q000191:economics* / Q000627:therapeutic use; D000069557:Travoprost; D006113:United Kingdom
chemical_list: D000959:Antihypertensive Agents; D004338:Drug Combinations; D009883:Ophthalmic Solutions; D011461:Prostaglandins F, Synthetic; D003008:Cloprostenol; D000077338:Latanoprost; D013999:Timolol; D000069557:Travoprost