ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2011
Treatment persistence and cost-effectiveness of latanoprost/latanoprost-timolol, bimatoprost/bimatoprost-timolol, and travoprost/travoprost-timolol in glaucoma: an analysis based on the United Kingdom general practitioner research database.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- From Eye Care to Hair Growth: Bimatoprost.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Second-Generation Trabecular Micro-Bypass Stents as Standalone Treatment for Glaucoma: A 36-Month Prospective Study.Advances in therapy · 2019Article
- Micro-invasive glaucoma surgery (MIGS): a review of surgical procedures using stents.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2017Article
- Cost Analysis of Commonly used Combination of Drugs in Primary Open Angle Glaucoma.Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare treatment persistence and costs with 3 glaucoma treatment sequences (first-line/second-line): latanoprost/latanoprost-timolol (LLT), bimatoprost/bimatoprost-timolol (BBT), and travoprost/travoprost-timolol (TTT), derived from the UK General Practitioner Research Database (UK-GPRD).
methodsPatient records referring to ocular hypertension, topical glaucoma treatment, surgery, or laser therapy were extracted. Patients prescribed LLT, BBT, or TTT sequences were selected. Treatment failure was inferred from glaucoma prescription change (adding or removing a topical treatment, surgery, or laser therapy). Treatment durations preceding failure were compared by applying Wilcoxon's test to survival curves. Adjustment on confounding variables was performed with a Cox model and a propensity score method. Unit costs were estimated from a UK National Health Service perspective.
resultsA total of 1592 patients received LLT, 110 BBT, and 114 TTT. Their mean age was 68 years and the sex ratio almost 1 male:1 female. No significant demographic or comorbidity differences were observed between treatment sequences. Treatment persistence at 36 months was achieved in 60.0% of LLT, 55.5% of BBT, and 70.3% of TTT patients (P = 0.005). Resources consumed and associated monthly costs were significantly less for the TTT group (£17.74) compared with BBT (£21.30) and LLT (£22.37) groups.
conclusionAnalysis of data obtained from the UK-GPRD suggests that the TTT treatment sequence achieved longer treatment persistence at lower cost than LLT and BBT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.