Richard G. Fiscella

Medical therapy cost considerations for glaucoma

PURPOSE To determine the calculated daily patient cost (cost minimization) of medical glaucoma therapy and review cost trends. DESIGN Experimental, controlled, prospective study. METHODS The actual volume of various glaucoma medications or glaucoma medications with redesigned bottles was determined for most commercially available sizes of the tested products. The drops per milliliter based on the actual volume and the daily costs of the dosage schedules recommended by the manufacturers were compared. The cost of each bottle of medication was determined from the average wholesale price (AWP) in the United States. A comparison to 1999 prices where applicable will be analyzed to review costing trends. RESULTS The generic timolol products (range, US dollars 0.38-US dollars 0.46 per day) were similar on a cost per day basis vs Betimol (Santen, Napa Valley, California, USA), Optipranolol (Bausch and Lomb Pharmaceuticals, Tampa, Florida, USA) and Timoptic (Merck, West Point, Pennsylvania, USA). Their percentage cost increase ranged from 5% to 22% since 1999, except for generic timolol XE gel-forming solution (48%). Betagan (Allergan, Irvine, California, USA), Betoptic S (Alcon Laboratories, Fort Worth, Texas, USA), and Ocupress (Novartis, Duluth, Georgia, USA) ranged from US dollars 0.88 to US dollars 1.11 per day, and their percentage cost increase ranged from 33% to 53%. Some brand-only products have raised their AWPs a greater percentage, including Betoptic S (37%), Iopidine (Alcon, Fort Worth, Texas, USA) (50%), Ocupress (Novartis Ophthalmics, Duluth, Georgia, USA) (53%), and Pilopine gel (Alcon, Fort Worth, Texas, USA) (32%). The mean cost per day for the topical carbonic anhydrase inhibitors Azopt (Alcon Laboratories; US dollars 1.33 per day) and Trusopt (Merck; US dollars 1.05 per day) differed from 1999 when prices were almost identical. Cosopt (Merck; timolol 0.5% plus dorzolamide 2%, US dollars 1.04 per day) was less than the cost of separate bottles of a topical carbonic anhydrase inhibitor and a beta-blocker. The selective alpha-2 agonist brimonidine 0.15% with Purite (Alphagan-P, Allergan, 5 ml) twice daily was US dollars 1.29 per day. The prostaglandin analogs were comparably priced with Lumigan (Allergan) US dollars 0.95 per day, Xalatan (Pharmacia and Upjohn, Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA) US dollars 1.25 per day, Travatan (Alcon Laboratories) US dollars 1.01 per day, and Rescula (Novartis) US dollars 0.90 per day. CONCLUSIONS All generic timolol, Betimol, Optipranolol, Timoptic, and Timoptic XE (Merck) ranged from US dollars 0.38 to US dollars 0.50 per day. Other beta-blocker products were about twice as costly, ranging from US dollars 0.88 to US dollars 1.11 per day. Cosopt (US dollars 1.05 per day) was less costly than separate bottles of a topical beta-blocker and a topical carbonic anhydrase inhibitor dosed three times daily or twice daily. The prostaglandin analogs ranged from US dollars 0.90 per day (Rescula) to US dollars 1.25 per day (Xalatan). Newer glaucoma medications exhibit similar costs per day in many cases, compared with more traditional medications, especially with greater price increases in older brand-only products.

Efficacy of dorzolamide hydrochloride in the management of chronic cystoid macular edema in patients with retinitis pigmentosa.

Purpose: To compare the effectiveness of topical dorzolamide hydrochloride (Trusopt, Merck and Co., Inc., West Point, PA), a carbonic anhydrase inhibitor, with that of oral acetazolamide (Diamox; Lederle Laboratories, Pearl River, NY) for the management of chronic cystoid macular edema in patients with retinitis pigmentosa. Methods: A prospective, double‐masked, crossover study was conducted in five patients with retinitis pigmentosa who had chronic cystoid macular edema. After baseline visual acuity was measured and a fluorescein angiogram was obtained, each patient was randomly assigned to receive either topical dorzolamide or a placebo for 4 weeks, followed by a crossover for the same period. Oral acetazolamide then was given separately to each patient for 2 weeks. Each phase of the study was followed by a washout period of 4 weeks, during which the patient was taken off all medications. At each visit, best corrected visual acuity was measured, a fluorescein angiogram was obtained, a subjective assessment of the effects on visual function, and any side effects of the medication or placebo were recorded in the form of a questionnaire by an independent observer. Results: Compared with baseline or placebo values, there was no measurable improvement in visual acuity on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study charts with dorzolamide in any of the patients. The visual acuity in three of five patients, however, improved by seven letters or more with acetazolamide. Compared again with baseline or placebo values, fluorescein angiograms of two of five patients showed improvement in macular edema in both eyes with the use of dorzolamide, whereas all five showed improvement with acetazolamide. The improvement in macular edema was more marked with acetazolamide than with dorzolamide. The effect of dorzolamide given three times a day was the same as that when it was given five times a day. One patient indicated that dorzolamide was more effective than acetazolamide in improving visual function, three of five patients believed that acetazolamide was more effective, and one felt that both were equally effective. Conclusion: Dorzolamide provided improvement in cases of macular edema on fluorescein angiograms and subjective improvement of visual function in some patients with retinitis pigmentosa with cystoid macular edema. However, there was no measurable improvement in visual acuity with the topical use of this drug. Oral acetazolamide was found to be more effective than dorzolamide in managing macular edema and improving visual acuity.

A new look at dry eye disease and its treatment

This review examines the impact of moderate to severe dry eye disease on daily life and medical-resource utilization. The results suggest that current treatment paradigms can lead to unacceptable costs in both quality of life and progressive use of healthcare resources. Evidence linking this disease to T-cell-mediated inflammatory processes lays the foundation for understanding the clinical benefits of topical cyclosporine, an immunomodulatory and anti-inflammatory agent.

Third- and fourth-generation fluoroquinolones: Retrospective comparison of endophthalmitis after cataract surgery performed over 10 years

PURPOSE: To determine differences in endophthalmitis rates with prophylactic use of third‐ versus fourth‐generation fluoroquinolones in cataract surgery. SETTING: University hospitals. METHODS: This retrospective cross‐sectional (prevalence) study looked at patients who had phacoemulsification at a university eye center over a 10‐year period. A nosocomial infectious reporting database was used to report endophthalmitis occurrences. The following were performed: a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data to establish endophthalmitis rates, a prevalence analysis of the postoperative quinolone antibiotic prescribed, and a comparative analysis of endophthalmitis rate versus postoperative quinolone prescribed for all reported endophthalmitis cases. The main outcome measure was occurrence of endophthalmitis after cataract surgery. RESULTS: From January 1997 to December 2007, 29 276 patients had phacoemulsification cataract surgery. Forty cases of postoperative bacterial endophthalmitis were reported. The endophthalmitis rate from January 1997 to August 2003 associated with use of third‐generation fluoroquinolones (ciprofloxacin, ofloxacin) was 0.197% (33/16 710). The rate from September 2003 to December 2007 associated with fourth‐generation fluoroquinolones (gatifloxacin, moxifloxacin) was 0.056% (7/12 566). The difference between third‐ and fourth‐generation drugs was statistically significant (P = .0011). Of fourth‐generation fluoroquinolone infections, 0.015% (1/6651) and 0.1% (6/5915) were associated with gatifloxacin and moxifloxacin, respectively. The difference between drugs was statistically significant (P = .040). CONCLUSIONS: The differences in the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of quinolone antibiotics may affect the endophthalmitis incidence after cataract surgery. The significant difference in endophthalmitis rates between gatifloxacin and moxifloxacin requires further study.

Cost considerations of medical therapy for glaucoma

PURPOSE To determine the calculated daily patient cost (cost minimization) of medical glaucoma therapy. METHODS The actual volume of various glaucoma medications was determined for all commercially available sizes of the tested products. The drops per ml on the basis of the actual volume and the daily costs of the dosage schedules recommended by the manufacturers were compared. The cost of each bottle of medication was determined from the average wholesale price in the United States. RESULTS The generic timolol products dosed twice daily and the once-daily gel-forming solutions (range,

Aqueous and vitreous penetration of levofloxacin after oral administration.

0.30 to

Emerging perspectives in glaucoma: Optimizing 24-hour control of intraocular pressure

0.46/day) were similar on a cost-per-day basis compared with the brand name metipranolol (Optipranolol; Bausch & Lomb Pharmaceuticals, Tampa, Florida, at

Intravitreal injection of liposome-encapsulated ganciclovir in a rabbit model.

0.43/day) and timolol (Timoptic; Merck, West Point, Pennsylvania, at

Aminocaproic Acid versus Prednisone for the Treatment of Traumatic Hyphema: A Randomized Clinical Trial

0.46/day and Timoptic XE at

Intravitreal Liposome-encapsulated Triofluorothymidine in a Rabbet Model

0.38/ day). Betaxolol (Betoptic S; Alcon Laboratories, Fort Worth, Texas, at