Patient persistence with first-line antiglaucomatous monotherapy.
OBJECTIVE
To identify the extent of persistence (period of time of continuous therapy with the drug prescribed) of glaucoma patients treated with prostaglandins (latanoprost, bimatoprost, or travoprost), or beta-blocker (timolol) monotherapy.


METHODS
An observational retrospective study of a 24-month follow-up in 191 patients (from four centers) was done to identify the time elapsed until patients discontinued their antiglaucomatous treatment. The relevant information was extracted from patients' medical charts. A descriptive analysis, a Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, and a Cox regression model were used to determine which drug was associated with greater patient persistence and to detect variables significantly influencing persistence.


RESULTS
Descriptive analysis and survival curves showed that after 24 months, latanoprost was associated with a higher persistence in glaucoma treatment than the alternative agents: 81.6% versus 22.9% for bimatoprost, 65.4% for travoprost, and 60.5% for timolol (P < 0.0001). Persistence was significantly influenced by the antiglaucoma agent used as monotherapy (with a six-fold higher risk of treatment discontinuation during the follow-up period due to receiving bimatoprost instead of latanoprost; P < 0.0001) and patient age (P = 0.001). Even though comorbidities could not be directly related to persistence, their occurrence was related to patient age. The main reasons for treatment discontinuation were lack of efficacy, development of intolerance and/or adverse events, which were significant in the bimatoprost group, 28.6% (P < 0.001) and 48.6% (P < 0.001), respectively.


CONCLUSIONS
Latanoprost shows higher patient persistence compared with travoprost, bimatoprost, and timolol in routine clinical practice, and could lead to better control of intraocular pressure and lower associated economic costs.
Arias
Alfonso
A
Ophthalmology Department, Fundación Hospital Alcorcón, Madrid, Spain.
Schargel
Konrad
K
Ussa
Fernando
F
Canut
Maria I
MI
Robles
Amelia Y Belén
AY
Sánchez
Belén Martí
BM
Indian J Ophthalmol. 2003 Jun;51(2):123-8
12831141
Can J Ophthalmol. 2005 Apr;40(2):161-9
16049529
Clin Ther. 2003 Apr;25(4):1172-85
12809964
Eur J Ophthalmol. 2003 Jul;13 Suppl 4:S53-60
12948053
Am J Ophthalmol. 2004 Jan;137(1 Suppl):S13-6
14697910
Am J Ophthalmol. 2004 Jan;137(1 Suppl):S3-12
14697909
Arch Ophthalmol. 2002 Jun;120(6):701-13; discussion 829-30
12049574
Am J Public Health. 1993 May;83(5):711-6
8484454
Arch Ophthalmol. 2002 Oct;120(10):1268-79
12365904
Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2003 Apr;14(2):86-90
12698048
Eur J Ophthalmol. 2003 Jul;13 Suppl 4:S21-9
12948050
Community Eye Health. 2008 Sep;21(67):37-9
19030126
Am J Manag Care. 2002 Aug;8(10 Suppl):S262-70
12188169
J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 2009 Apr;25(2):145-52
19284321
Am J Manag Care. 2002 Aug;8(10 Suppl):S271-7
12188170
Am J Ophthalmol. 2000 Oct;130(4):429-40
11024415
Am J Ophthalmol. 2003 May;135(5):688-703
12719078
Eur J Ophthalmol. 2003 Jul;13 Suppl 4:S44-52
12948052
Am J Manag Care. 2002 Aug;8(10 Suppl):S255-61
12188168
J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 2004 Oct;20(5):383-92
15650513
J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 2004 Jan-Mar;16(1):50-3
15125183
Am J Manag Care. 2002 Aug;8(10 Suppl):S249-54
12188167
Surv Ophthalmol. 2004 Mar;49 Suppl 1:S45-52
15016561
Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2005 Apr;16(2):114-21
15744142
J Glaucoma. 2003 Dec;12(6):463-5
14646679