Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Cost Effectiveness of Travoprost versus a Fixed Combination of Latanoprost/Timolol in Patients with Ocular Hypertension or Glaucoma

Analysis Based on the UK General Practitioner Research Database

  • 86 Accesses

  • 8 Citations


Objective: This study aimed to compare the cost effectiveness of travoprost versus a fixed combination of latanoprost/timolol as first-line therapies for ocular hypertension or glaucoma.

Methods: Patient charts were extracted from the UK General Practitioner Research Database. Patients with ocular hypertension or glaucoma who received first-line treatment with either travoprost or latanoprost/timolol and were followed up for >6 months were included. Treatment failure was defined as a treatment change or a glaucoma intervention (laser therapy or surgery). Time to treatment failure was compared using a Cox model and adjusted by the propensity score method.

Results: Eligible patients received either travoprost (n = 639) or latanoprost/timolol (n = 176). Their mean age was 70 years at diagnosis and 48.2% of patients were male. Patient characteristics did not differ significantly between treatment groups. Treatment failure rates at 1 year were 31.3% (travoprost) and 39.4% (latanoprost/timolol) and yielded a hazard ratio for failure in favour of travoprost (0.75; p < 0.04) after adjusting for age, sex, co-morbidities and duration of follow-up. Adjusted annual costs of glaucoma management were significantly (p < 0.001) less with travoprost (£215.86) than with latanoprost/timolol (£327.83).

Conclusions: In everyday practice, travoprost was maintained longer than latanoprost/ timolol as first-line therapy for glaucoma. The mean daily costs of travoprost were 50.8% less per patient than those of latanoprost/timolol. Despite adjustments, these results might be confounded, at least partially, by disease severity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Table I
Table II
Table III
Table IV
Fig. 1
Table V
Table VI


  1. 1.

    Weih LM, Nanjan M, McCarty CA, et al. Prevalence and predictors of open-angle glaucoma: results from the Visual Impairment Project. Ophthalmology 2001; 108(11): 1966–72

  2. 2.

    Broman AT, Quigley HA. The number of people with glaucoma worldwide in 2010 and 2020. Br J Ophthalmol 2006; 90: 253–4

  3. 3.

    Topouzis, F, Coleman AL, Harris A, et al. Factors associated with undiagnosed open-angle gluacoma: the Thessaloniki Eye Study. Am J Ophthalmol 2008; Feb 145(2): 327–35

  4. 4.

    Weih LM, Nanjan M, McCarthy CA, et al. Prevalence and predictors of open-angle glaucoma: results from the visual impairment project. Ophthalmology 2001 Nov; 108(11): 1966–72

  5. 5.

    Varma R, Ying-Lai M, Francis BA, et al. Prevalence of open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension in Latinos: the Los Angeles Latino Eye Study. Ophthalmology 2004 Aug; 111(8): 1439–48

  6. 6.

    The Eye Diseases Prevalence Research Group. Prevalence of open-angle glaucoma in the United States. Arch Opthalmol 2004; 122: 532–8

  7. 7.

    Quigley HA, Vitale S. Models of open-angle glaucoma prevalence and incidence in the Unites States. Inv Opthalmol Vis Sci 1997; 38: 83–91

  8. 8.

    Chen PP. Risk and risk factors for blindness from glaucoma. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2004; 15(2): 107–11

  9. 9.

    Bunce C, Wormald R. Leading causes of certification for blindness and partial sight in England and Wales. BMC Public Health 2006; 6: 58

  10. 10.

    Kass MA, Heuer DK, Higginbotham EJ, et al. The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study: a randomized trial determines that topical ocular hypotensive medication delays or prevents the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 2002; 120: 701–13

  11. 11.

    The European Glaucoma Prevention Study (EGPS) group. Results of the European Glaucoma Prevention Study. Ophthalmology 2005; 112: 366–75

  12. 12.

    The AGIS investigators. The Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study (AGIS). 13: comparison of treatment outcomes within race — 10-year results. Ophthalmology 2004; 111: 651–64

  13. 13.

    Heijl A, Leske MC, Bengtsson B, et al. for the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial Group. Reduction of intraocular pressure and glaucoma progression: results from the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial. Arch Ophthalmol 2002; 120: 1268–79

  14. 14.

    Leske MC, Heijl A, Hussein M, et al. for the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial Group. Factors for glaucoma progression and the effect of treatment: the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial. Arch Ophthalmol 2003; 121: 48–56

  15. 15.

    Coyle D, Drummond M. The economic burden of glaucoma in the UK: the need for a far-sighted policy. Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 7: 484–9

  16. 16.

    Kooner KS, Zimmerman TJ. The cost of antiglaucoma medications. Ann Ophthalmol 1987; 19: 327–8

  17. 17.

    Jönsson B, Krieglstein G. Primary open-angle glaucoma: differences in international treatment patterns and costs, Oxford: Isis Medical Media Ltd, 1998

  18. 18.

    Kobelt G, Jonsson L, Gerdtham U, et al. Direct costs of glaucoma management following initiation of medical therapy: a simulation model based on an observational study of glaucoma treatment in Germany. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 1998; 236: 811–21

  19. 19.

    Denis P, Lafuma A, Berdeaux G. Medical predictive factors of glaucoma treatment costs. J Glaucoma 2004; 13: 283–90

  20. 20.

    European Medicines agency. EPARs for authorised medicinal products for human use [online]. Available from URL: http://http://www.emea.europa.eu/humandocs/Humans/EPAR/ganfort/ganfort.htm [Accessed 2007 Sep 10]

  21. 21.

    European Medicines agency. EPARs for authorised medicinal products for human use [online]. Available from URL: http://http://www.emea.europa.eu/humandocs/Humans/EPAR/travatan/travatan.htm [Accessed 2007 Sep 10]

  22. 22.

    Franks WA, Renard JP, Cunliffe IA, et al. A 6-week, double-masked, parallel-group study of the efficacy and safety of travoprost 0.004% compared with latanoprost 0.005%/timolol 0.5% in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Clin Ther 2006; 28: 332–9

  23. 23.

    Netland PA, Landry T, Sullivan K, et al. Travoprost compared with latanoprost and timolol in patients with elevated intraocular pressure: a 12-week randomized masked-evaluator multicenter study. Am J Ophtalmol 2003; 135: 688–703

  24. 24.

    Parrish RK, Palmberg P, Sheu WP. A comparison of latanoprost, bimatoprost and travoprost in patients with pseudoexfoliation glaucoma. Eur J Ophthalmol 2006; 16: 73–80

  25. 25.

    Hjelmgren J, Berggren F, Andersson D. Health economics guidelines: similarities, differences and some implications. Value Health 2001; 4: 225–50

  26. 26.

    Covert D, Robin AL. Adjunctive glaucoma therapy use associated with travoprost, bimatoprost, and latanoprost. Curr Med Res Opin 2006; 22: 971–6

  27. 27.

    Deschaseaux-Voinet C, Lafuma A, Berdeaux G. Cost and effectiveness of brinzolamide versus dorzolamide in current practice: an analysis based on the UK-GPRD data base. J Med Econom 2003; 6: 69–78

  28. 28.

    Wilensky J, Fiscella RG, Carlson AM, et al. Measurement of persistence and adherence to regimens of IOP-lowering glaucoma medications using pharmacy claims data. Am J Ophthalmol 2006; 141(1 Suppl.): S28–33

  29. 29.

    Nordstrom BL, Friedman DS, Mozaffari E, et al. Persistence and adherence with topical glaucoma therapy. Am J Ophthalmol 2005; 140: 598–606

  30. 30.

    UK General Practitioner Research Database (UK GPRD) [online]. Available from URL: http://http://www.gprd.com/home [Accessed 2008 Nov 5]

  31. 31.

    International statistical classification of diseases and related health problems. 10th revised version for 2007 [online]. Available from URL: http://http://www.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icdlOonline [Accessed 2008 Oct 1]

  32. 32.

    British National Formulary [online]. Available from URL: http://http://www.bnf.org [Accessed 2007 Sep 10]

  33. 33.

    Yue LQ. Statistical and regulatory issues with the application of propensity score analysis to nonrandomized medical device clinical studies. J Biopharm Stat 2007; 17: 1–13

  34. 34.

    Organisation for Co-operation and Economic Development. [online]. Available from URL: http://http://www.oecd.org [Accessed 2007 Sep 10]

  35. 35.

    Higginbotham EJ, Feldman R, Stiles M, et al. on behalf of the Fixed Combination Investigative Group. Latanoprost and timolol combination therapy vs monotherapy: one-year randomized trial. Arch Ophthalmol 2002 Jul; 120(7): 915–22

  36. 36.

    The AGIS investigators. The Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study (AGIS). 7: The relationship between control of intraocular pressure and visual field deterioration. Am J Ophthalmol 2000 Oct; 130(4): 429–40

  37. 37.

    Denis P, Lafuma A, Khoshnood B, et al. A meta-analysis of topical prostaglandin analogues intra-ocular pressure lowering in glaucoma therapy. Curr Med Res Opin 2007 Mar; 23(3): 601–8

  38. 38.

    Pfeiffer N, for the European Latanoprost Fixed Combination Study Group. A comparison of the fixed combination of latanoprost and timolol with its individual components. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2002 Nov; 240(11): 893–9

  39. 39.

    Magacho L, Reis R, Shetty RK, et al. Efficacy of latanoprost or fixed-combination latanoprost-timolol in patients switched from a combination of timolol and a nonprostaglandin medication. Ophthalmology 2006 Mar; 113(3): 442–5

  40. 40.

    Denis PH, Launois R, Devaux M, et al. Comparison of diurnal intraocular pressure control by latanoprost versus travoprost: results of an observational survey. Clin Drug Invest 2006; 26(12): 703–14

  41. 41.

    Nordmann JP, Berdeaux G. Use of Bayesian networks to predict the nocturnal intraocular pressure peak from day-time measurements. Clin Ther 2007; 29(8): 1751–60

  42. 42.

    Dubiner HB, Sircy MD, Landry T, et al. Comparison of the diurnal ocular hypotensive efficacy of travoprost and latanoprost over a 44-hour period in patients with elevated intraocular pressure. Clin Ther 2004 Jan; 26(1): 84–91

  43. 43.

    Denis P, LePen C, Umuhire D, et al. Treatment carry-over impacts on effectiveness of intra-ocular pressure lowering agents, estimated by a discrete event simulation model. Eur J Ophthalmol 2008; 18(1): 44–51

  44. 44.

    Denis PH, Lafuma A, Jeanbat V, et al. Intra-ocular pressure control of latanoprost/timolol and travoprost/timolol fixed combinations: a retrospective, multicentre and cross sectional study. Clin Drug Invest 2008; 28: 767–76

  45. 45.

    Dictionnaire du Vidal. Issy les Moulineaux. France: Edition du Vidal, 2006

  46. 46.

    Tsai T, Robin AL, Smith 3rd JP. An evaluation of how glaucoma patients use topical medications: a pilot study. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 2007; 105: 29–33

  47. 47.

    Robin AL, Novack GD, Covert DW, et al. Adherence in glaucoma: objective measurements of once-daily and adjunctive medication use. Am J Ophthalmol 2007 Oct; 144(4): 533–40

  48. 48.

    Sleath B, Robin AL, Covert D, et al. Patient-reported behavior and problems in using glaucoma medications. Ophthalmology 2006 Mar; 113(3): 431–6

Download references


This analysis was supported by an unrestricted grant from Alcon France SA, Rueil-Malmaison, France. The analysis was performed by Cemka Eval, Bourg-la-Reine, France. Dr Gilles Berdeaux is employed by Alcon France. Dr Renato De Natale has participated in clinical trials initiated by Alcon Research Ltd. Dr Antoine Lafuma has no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this study. The authors would like to thank Robert Pigache MD, FFPM for proofreading the manuscript. This paper was presented as an abstract at the European International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Congress, Copenhagen, October 2006.

Author information

Correspondence to Dr Gilles Berdeaux.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

De Natale, R., Lafuma, A. & Berdeaux, G. Cost Effectiveness of Travoprost versus a Fixed Combination of Latanoprost/Timolol in Patients with Ocular Hypertension or Glaucoma. Clin. Drug Investig. 29, 111–120 (2009). https://doi.org/10.2165/0044011-200929020-00005

Download citation


  • Glaucoma
  • Laser Therapy
  • Timolol
  • Latanoprost
  • Ocular Hypertension