ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2022
Cost-Utility Analysis of a Latanoprost Cationic Emulsion (STN1013001) versus Other Latanoprost in the Treatment of Open-Angle Glaucoma or Ocular Hypertension and Concomitant Ocular Surface Disease in Germany.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Economic evidence of alternative formulations and routes of administration for identical active pharmaceutical ingredient: a systematic review.Health economics review · 2026Review
- Letter to the Editor: Lazzaro responds to Kennedy et al.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to estimate the cost-utility and economic value of STN1013001, a latanoprost cationic emulsion vs other latanoprost formulations (henceforth latanoprost) in patients with open-angle glaucoma (OAG) or ocular hypertension (OHT) and concomitant ocular surface disease (OSD) in Germany.
methodsAn early 5-year Markov model-supported cost-utility analysis was performed to estimate costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and life-years saved (LYS) for STN1013001 vs latanoprost from the German health system perspective. The model included seven mutually exclusive health states and adopted a 1-year cycle length. The model was populated with pooled data derived, by means of a questionnaire, from a convenience sample of five German glaucoma specialists. Remaining data were derived from published sources. Data provided by the ophthalmologists included annual treatment adherence probabilities, utility values and resource utilization. The half-cycle correction as well as a discount rate of 3.0% per year were applied to costs (expressed in €2020), life-year saved (LYS) and QALYs. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was contrasted against the informal willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold for incremental LYS saved or QALY gained (€30,000) proposed for Germany. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (OWSA; PSA) tested the robustness of the base case ICUR.
resultsOver the 5-year time horizon, STN1013001 strongly dominates latanoprost as it is less costly (€1003.65 vs €1145.37; -12.37%) and produces more QALYs (2.612 vs 2.365; +10.44%) per notional patient. Baseline findings were robust against all the variations included in OWSA. PSA shows that STN1013001 has a 100% probability of being cost-effective vs Latanoprost at each WTP threshold for incremental QALY gained.
conclusionOnce on the market, STN1013001 will provide a cost-effective and possibly strongly dominant therapy vs latanoprost for OAG/OHT+OSD patients from a German health system perspective. Future empirical research should confirm these findings.
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.