Cost Effectiveness
LUMIGAN is more cost-effective than latanoprost
LUMIGAN is more cost-effective than generic timolol
LUMIGAN is more cost-effective than timolol/dorzolamide combination therapy
LUMIGAN is more cost-effective than travoprost
LUMIGAN is more cost-effective than latanoprost
Cost per treatment success: LUMIGAN versus latanoprost 21
Lower pressure and lower costs with LUMIGAN
Data were from an algorithm 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 with latanoprost
(n = 119 and 113, respectively) and another 6-month controlled clinical trial comparing bimatoprost with latanoprost (n = 133 and 136, respectively). Treatment success was defined as the percentage of patients achieving various target intraocular pressures.
Back to top
LUMIGAN is more cost-effective than generic timolol
Cost per treatment success: LUMIGAN versus timolol 22
Lower pressures and lower costs with LUMIGAN
A cost-effectiveness evaluation was conducted based on 6-month and 12-month results of randomized clinical trials that compared the effectiveness of generic timolol with bimatoprost in the treatment of glaucoma. The key clinical outcome of these trials was the ability to lower intraocular pressure to low target levels. The effectiveness data were used in comparison with drug costs to estimate expected annual costs of either drug compared with patient performance.
Back to top
LUMIGAN is more cost-effective than timolol / dorzolamide combination therapy
Cost per treatment success: LUMIGAN versus timolol / dorzolamide 23
Lower pressure and lower costs with LUMIGAN
A pharmacoeconomic model was constructed based on a 3-month, randomized, controlled efficacy trial comparing bimatoprost and a fixed combination of timolol and dorzolamide. The trial evaluated the percentage of patients achieving target intraocular pressures (IOPs) throughout the day. The cost of treatment to achieve target was calculated as medication cost/expected effectiveness based on patients achieving a target IOP of < 17 mm Hg.
Back to top
LUMIGAN is more cost-effective than travoprost
LUMIGAN cost-effectiveness versus travoprost 24
Achieve more cost-effective therapy with LUMIGAN
A pharmacoeconomic model was constructed based on a 6-month, randomized, controlled efficacy trial comparing bimatoprost and travoprost. The trial evaluated the percentage of patients achieving a range of target intraocular pressures (IOPs). The cost of treatment to achieve target was calculated as the average total yearly medication treatment cost/expected effectiveness based on patients achieving a specific IOP.
Back to top
|