Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25579357›Full record

Trial reportIndian journal of ophthalmology2014

A pharmacoeconomic analysis to determine the relative cost-effectiveness of bimatoprost 0.03% eye drops and brimonidine 0.2% eye drops in patients of primary open-angle glaucoma/ocular hypertension.

Navreet Kaur Natt, A Gupta, G Singh, T Singh

Open access · diamondAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 38% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. From Eye Care to Hair Growth: Bimatoprost.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Cost Analysis of Commonly used Combination of Drugs in Primary Open Angle Glaucoma.Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR · 2015
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Navreet Kaur NattDepartment of Health and Family Welfare, CHC Manawala, SGRD Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Amritsar, India.
A Gupta
G Singh
T Singh
Government Medical College · INInstitute of Medical Sciences · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsThe aim was to compare efficacy and cost-effectiveness of bimatoprost 0.03% and brimonidine 0.2% in primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG)/ocular hypertension (OHT). SETTINGS AND

designOpen, randomized, cross-over, comparative study. MATERIALS AND

methodsForty patients of POAG or OHT with intraocular pressure (IOP) <30 mm Hg were included in the study after a written informed consent. The patients were divided randomly into two groups of 20 patients each. Patients of group A were administered bimatoprost 0.03% eye drops once daily, and those of group B brimonidine 0.2% eye drops twice daily for a period of 4 weeks. After a washout period of 4 weeks, the patients were crossed over that is, group A was administered brimonidine 0.2% and group B bimatoprost 0.03%. Fall in IOP at 4 weeks was recorded. The daily cost of each drug was calculated by maximum retail price and the average number of drops per bottle. The cost-effectiveness was then calculated as the cost of drug/mm Hg fall in IOP. STATISTICS: Independent samples t-test was used to compare the efficacy of both drugs.

resultsIOP lowering with bimatoprost (8.9 ± 1.598 mm Hg) was significantly (P < 0.0001) higher than brimonidine (6.55 ± 1.26 mm Hg). The number of drops/ml were 33.43 ± 0.52 and 25.49 ± 0.26, respectively, for bimatoprost and brimonidine. Treatment with bimatoprost was costlier than brimonidine with daily costs/eye Rs. 4.02 ± 0.06 and 3.14 ± 0.03, yearly costs/eye Rs. 1467.46 ± 20.74 and 1147.75 ± 11.15, respectively. Bimatoprost was more cost-effective than brimonidine with the cost-effectiveness ratio (CER) respectively Rs. 13.10 ± 2.61/mm Hg and Rs. 13.96 ± 2.86/mm Hg. Incremental CER Rs. 10.43/mm Hg implies lower costs/mm Hg extra IOP lowering by bimatoprost than Rs. 13.96 for brimonidine.

conclusionIn spite of being costlier, bimatoprost is more efficacious and cost-effective than brimonidine.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overAntihypertensive AgentsBimatoprostBrimonidine TartrateCost-Benefit AnalysisCross-Over StudiesDose-Response Relationship, DrugEconomics, PharmaceuticalFemaleGlaucoma, Open-AngleHumansIntraocular PressureMaleMiddle AgedAntihypertensive AgentsBimatoprostBrimonidine TartrateOphthalmic Solutions

Identifiers

PMID25579357
PMCPMC4313493
OpenAlexW2009743587

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.