A cost-effectiveness comparison of bimatoprost versus latanoprost in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension

To compare the cost-effectiveness of bimatoprost versus latanoprost for the treatment of glaucoma and ocular hypertension, a cost-effectiveness algorithm was developed to estimate the annual costs and cost per treatment success (cost-effectiveness) for bimatoprost 0.03% QD compared with latanoprost 0.005% QD. Medication costs for the model were abstracted from published sources. Clinical assumptions for the model were based on the treatment success rates from one 3-month controlled clinical trial comparing bimatoprost versus latanoprost (n =119 and 113, respectively), and another 6-month controlled clinical trial comparing bimatoprost versus latanoprost (n=133 and 136, respectively). Treatment success was defined as the percentage of patients achieving various target intraocular pressures. A larger percentage of patients achieved low target IOPs on bimatoprost than on latanoprost. The cost per treatment success for patients who started treatment on bimatoprost monotherapy was less than for patients started on latanoprost, despite the fact that the estimated yearly costs were similar for these drugs. In this model bimatoprost was found to be more cost-effective than latanoprost, given the average wholesale price of these medications and the assumptions of the cost-effectiveness algorithm about clinical success at the 3- and 6-month decision points.