Search

Objective: Cost is an issue when prescribing two drugs with equivalent efficacy. We compared the direct medical costs of topical brinzolamide 1% (twice a day or three times daily) with topical dorzolamide 2% (twice a day or three times daily) in France, Italy, Portugal and Spain in patients with ocular hypertension or primary open-angle glaucoma.Design and Setting: Three double-blind, controlled, randomised trials (with a study duration of 3 months) compared the response rate of brinzolamide twice a day or three times daily versus dorzolamide three times daily, and the response rate of brinzolamide-timolol twice a day versus a dorzolamide-timolol combination twice a day. A fourth double-blind randomised trial (with a duration of 12 months) compared brinzolamide twice a day and three times daily with timolol monotherapy. Local tolerance was compared in two dedicated studies. Rates of switching to a new medication regimen were evaluated through a US health maintenance organisation database. In case of treatment failure, the patients were treated with latanoprost. A model was developed to value direct medical costs over 3 months. The economic perspective was that of the third-party payer and the patient, and included direct medical costs (reimbursed part plus co-payment).Patients: Patients with ocular hypertension and/or primary open-angle glaucoma who had not responded to or could not tolerate beta-blocker therapy.Outcome Measure: The daily direct medical costs of therapy with the two drugs.Results: As monotherapy, brinzolamide twice daily and three times daily was found to be as efficacious as dorzolamide three times a day. Brinzolamide twice daily plus timolol was also as efficacious as a combination of dorzolamide and timolol twice a day. Stinging of the eye upon instillation with brinzolamide was experienced by fewer patients than with dorzolamide (p < 0.0001). The likelihood of patients treated with dorzolamide changing therapy was 1.28 times greater than that for those treated with brinzolamide. The size of the brinzolamide drop is 18.7% smaller than that of dorzolamide allowing seven more therapy days per bottle with brinzolamide twice daily than with dorzolamide monotherapy, and five more days when brinzolamide is used three times a day. The direct medical costs for patients treated with brinzolamide were lower in all four European countries when drop size was taken into account than for those treated with dorzolamide. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of our findings.Conclusion: Because brinzolamide can be prescribed twice daily in monotherapy and because fewer patients treated with brinzolamide switch therapy due to local intolerance, our model suggests that brinzolamide is a cost-saving alternative to dorzolamide. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Long-term management of chronic conditions, such as atrial fibrillation (AF), require frequent interactions with the healthcare systems. The multinational EUropean Patient Survey in Atrial Fibrillation (EUPS-AF) was conducted to investigate patient satisfaction with AF management in different of five European healthcare systems at a time of changing treatment paradigms for stroke prophylaxis, prior to the advent of newer oral anticoagulants., Methods: Adults (>18 years) were recruited at random from the total populations of France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK using a randomized telephone dialling system. At least 300 respondents per country reporting to have a diagnosis of AF or receiving oral anticoagulation therapy for suspected AF or to have a heart rhythm disturbance completed a structured telephone interview., Results: Most respondents were satisfied with their treatment for AF over the previous 12 months, with 85.5% (n = 1289) rating their care as good or better. Suboptimal clinical practices, however, were identified in several key areas. Coordination of primary and secondary care and a lack of patient engagement and support were particular issues, especially for those patients likely to have extensive contact with their healthcare system., Conclusions: In the context of Europe-wide guidelines for management of AF, most patients with AF were satisfied with their care, but for a greater proportion of patients, some aspects are unsatisfactory. Patient-centred surveys, such as the EUPS-AF, are crucial for understanding the factors that contribute to patient satisfaction and compliance with long-term treatment for chronic conditions.

Purpose: To compare the cost-effectiveness of different intra-ocular lens (IOL) materials (Hydrophobic acrylic, Polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), Hydrophilic acrylic and Silicone) implanted after cataract surgery with reference to Nd:YAG laser capsulotomy and Nd:YAG-related complications in four European countries (France, Italy, Germany and Spain)., Setting: A retrospective review of 1,525 patients (eyes), aged 50 to 80 years, operated with phacoemulsification for cataract in 1996 or 1997 in 16 surgical centres (4 per country)., Methods: The study was conducted using a cost-effectiveness approach. Medical charts were reviewed to collect retrospective information during the 3-year period following cataract surgery in order to identify patients who underwent Nd:YAG laser capsulotomy post-operatively. Clinical data were combined with unit costs assessed by experts for Nd:YAG laser capsulotomy and their complications. A cost-effectiveness ratio (cost per patient without Nd:YAG laser capsulotomy intervention) was estimated in relation to each IOL material used in each of the four European countries., Results: Hydrophobic acrylic, specifically Acrysof, was the most cost-effective IOL material in all the countries except Germany where it was second. PMMA had the best ratio in Germany, was second in Spain and only third in Italy and France. Silicone was second in France and ranked third in the other countries, while hydrophilic acrylic had the worst ratio overall in all countries., Conclusions: Cost-effectiveness ratios of hydrophobic acrylic (Acrysof) were better than those of other types of IOL materials used in most of the countries. Sensitivity analyses were performed to vary the base case analysis to demonstrate the economic importance of the assumptions. In all cases, hydrophobic acrylic IOL material was shown to be a highly cost-effective option.