Cost-effectiveness of Medications Compared With Laser Trabeculoplasty in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Open-Angle Glaucoma | Glaucoma | JAMA Ophthalmology | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 34.239.177.24. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
Quigley HA. Number of people with glaucoma worldwide.  Br J Ophthalmol. 1996;80(5):389-3938695555PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Quigley HA, Broman AT. The number of people with glaucoma worldwide in 2010 and 2020.  Br J Ophthalmol. 2006;90(3):262-26716488940PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Kass MA, Heuer DK, Higginbotham EJ,  et al.  The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study: a randomized trial determines that topical ocular hypotensive medication delays or prevents the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma.  Arch Ophthalmol. 2002;120(6):701-713, discussion 829-83012049574PubMedGoogle Scholar
4.
Leske MC, Heijl A, Hussein M, Bengtsson B, Hyman L, Komaroff E.Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial Group.  Factors for glaucoma progression and the effect of treatment: the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial.  Arch Ophthalmol. 2003;121(1):48-5612523884PubMedGoogle Scholar
5.
Lichter PR, Musch DC, Gillespie BW,  et al; CIGTS Study Group.  Interim clinical outcomes in the Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study comparing initial treatment randomized to medications or surgery.  Ophthalmology. 2001;108(11):1943-195311713061PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
AGIS Investigators.  The Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study (AGIS), 7: The relationship between control of intraocular pressure and visual field deterioration.  Am J Ophthalmol. 2000;130(4):429-44011024415PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Glaucoma Laser Trial Research Group.  The Glaucoma Laser Trial (GLT) and glaucoma laser trial follow-up study, 7: results.  Am J Ophthalmol. 1995;120(6):718-7318540545PubMedGoogle Scholar
8.
Burr J, Azuara-Blanco A, Avenell A. Medical versus surgical interventions for open angle glaucoma.  Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005;(2):CD00439915846712PubMedGoogle Scholar
9.
Stein JD, Ayyagari P, Sloan FA, Lee PP. Rates of glaucoma medication utilization among persons with primary open-angle glaucoma, 1992 to 2002.  Ophthalmology. 2008;115(8):1315-1319, 1319, e118321581PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Azuara-Blanco A, Burr J. The rising cost of glaucoma drugs.  Br J Ophthalmol. 2006;90(2):130-13116424517PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Tsai JC. Medication adherence in glaucoma: approaches for optimizing patient compliance.  Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2006;17(2):190-19516552255PubMedGoogle Scholar
12.
Stein JD, Challa P. Mechanisms of action and efficacy of argon laser trabeculoplasty and selective laser trabeculoplasty.  Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2007;18(2):140-14517301616PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Melamed S, Ben Simon GJ, Levkovitch-Verbin H. Selective laser trabeculoplasty as primary treatment for open-angle glaucoma: a prospective, nonrandomized pilot study.  Arch Ophthalmol. 2003;121(7):957-96012860797PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Truffer CJ, Keehan S, Smith S,  et al.  Health spending projections through 2019: the recession's impact continues.  Health Aff (Millwood). 2010;29(3):522-52920133357PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Deva NC, Insull E, Gamble G, Danesh-Meyer HV. Risk factors for first presentation of glaucoma with significant visual field loss.  Clin Experiment Ophthalmol. 2008;36(3):217-22118412589PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Briggs AH, Claxton K, Sculpher MJ. Decision Modelling for Health Economic Evaluation. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; 2006
17.
Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW,  et al.  Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2005
18.
Muennig P. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Health: A Practical Approach. 2nd ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2008
19.
Arias E. United States life tables, 2004.  Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2007;56(9):1-3918274319PubMedGoogle Scholar
20.
Arias E. United States life tables, 2006.  Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2010;58(21):1-4021043319PubMedGoogle Scholar
21.
Hodapp E, Parrish RK II, Anderson DR. Clinical Decisions in Glaucoma. St Louis, MO: CV Mosby; 1993:84-125
22.
Alm A, Camras CB, Watson PG. Phase III latanoprost studies in Scandinavia, the United Kingdom and the United States.  Surv Ophthalmol. 1997;41:(suppl 2)  s105-s1109154285PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Wilson MR, Kosoko O, Cowan CL Jr,  et al.  Progression of visual field loss in untreated glaucoma patients and glaucoma suspects in St. Lucia, West Indies.  Am J Ophthalmol. 2002;134(3):399-40512208252PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
Chen PP. Blindness in patients with treated open-angle glaucoma.  Ophthalmology. 2003;110(4):726-73312689894PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.  2010 Average Medicare Fee Schedule. https://www.cms.gov/PhysicianFeeSched/. Accessed November 14, 2010
26.
Engel K, edRed Book. Montvale, NJ: Thomson Healthcare; 2008
27.
 Latanoprost. Drugstore Web site. http://www.drugstore.com/latanoprost/xalatan/2-5ml-bottle-0-005-solution/qxn59762033301. Accessed April 16, 2011
28.
 Xalatan. SuperSaverMeds Web site. http://www.supersavermeds.com/xalatan/. Accessed April 16, 2011
29.
Lee PP, Walt JG, Doyle JJ,  et al.  A multicenter, retrospective pilot study of resource use and costs associated with severity of disease in glaucoma.  Arch Ophthalmol. 2006;124(1):12-1916401779PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Lee BS, Kymes SM, Nease RF Jr, Sumner W, Siegfried CJ, Gordon MO. The impact of anchor point on utilities for 5 common ophthalmic diseases.  Ophthalmology. 2008;115(5):898-903, e417826833PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
Brown MM, Brown GC, Sharma S, Kistler J, Brown H. Utility values associated with blindness in an adult population.  Br J Ophthalmol. 2001;85(3):327-33111222340PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Jampel HD, Schwartz A, Pollack I, Abrams D, Weiss H, Miller R. Glaucoma patients' assessment of their visual function and quality of life.  J Glaucoma. 2002;11(2):154-16311912364PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
Eddy DM, Billings J. The quality of medical evidence: implications for quality of care.  Health Aff (Millwood). 1988;7(1):19-323360391PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
Rein DB, Wittenborn JS, Lee PP,  et al.  The cost-effectiveness of routine office-based identification and subsequent medical treatment of primary open-angle glaucoma in the United States.  Ophthalmology. 2009;116(5):823-83219285730PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
35.
Friedman DS, Okeke CO, Jampel HD,  et al.  Risk factors for poor adherence to eyedrops in electronically monitored patients with glaucoma.  Ophthalmology. 2009;116(6):1097-110519376591PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
36.
Friedman DS, Quigley HA, Gelb L,  et al.  Using pharmacy claims data to study adherence to glaucoma medications: methodology and findings of the Glaucoma Adherence and Persistency Study (GAPS).  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007;48(11):5052-505717962457PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
37.
Sleath B, Blalock S, Covert D,  et al.  The relationship between glaucoma medication adherence, eye drop technique, and visual field defect severity.  Ophthalmology. 2011;118(12):2398-240221856009PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
38.
Sleath B, Blalock SJ, Robin A,  et al.  Development of an instrument to measure glaucoma medication self-efficacy and outcome expectations.  Eye (Lond). 2010;24(4):624-63119648896PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
39.
Konstas AG, Maskaleris G, Gratsonidis S, Sardelli C. Compliance and viewpoint of glaucoma patients in Greece.  Eye (Lond). 2000;14(pt 5):752-75611116698PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
40.
Rossi GC, Pasinetti GM, Scudeller L,  et al.  Do adherence rates and glaucomatous visual field progression correlate?  Eur J Ophthalmol. 2011;21(4):410-41421140373PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Socioeconomics of Ophthalmology
Apr 2012

Cost-effectiveness of Medications Compared With Laser Trabeculoplasty in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Open-Angle Glaucoma

Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Departments of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences (Dr Stein) and Health Management and Policy (Mr Kim and Dr Hutton), and College of Pharmacy (Mssrs Peck and Giannetti), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Arch Ophthalmol. 2012;130(4):497-505. doi:10.1001/archophthalmol.2011.2727
Abstract

Objective To determine the most cost-effective treatment option for patients with newly diagnosed mild open-angle glaucoma: observation only, treatment with generic topical prostaglandin analogs (PGAs), or treatment with laser trabeculoplasty (LTP).

Methods Using a Markov model with a 25-year horizon, we compared the incremental cost-effectiveness of treating newly diagnosed mild open-angle glaucoma with PGAs, LTP, or observation only.

Results The incremental cost-effectiveness of LTP over no treatment is $16 824 per quality-adjusted life year. By comparison, the incremental cost-effectiveness of PGAs over no treatment is $14 179 per quality-adjusted life year, and they provide greater health-related quality of life relative to LTP. If PGAs are 25% less effective owing to poor patient adherence, LTP can confer greater value.

Conclusions Prostaglandin analogs and LTP are both cost-effective options for the management of newly diagnosed mild open-angle glaucoma. Assuming optimal medication adherence, PGAs confer greater value compared with LTP. However, when assuming more realistic levels of medication adherence (making them 25% less effective than the documented effectiveness reported in clinical trials), at current prices for PGAs, LTP may be a more cost-effective alternative.

×