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

References

• Kreft D, Doblhammer G, Guthoff RF, Frech S. Prevalence, incidence, and risk factors of primary open-angle glaucoma -a cohort study based on longitudinal data from a German public health insurance. BMC Public Health. 2019;19(1):851. doi:10.1186/s12889-019-6935-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tham YC, Li X, Wong TY, Quigley HA, Aung T, Cheng CY. Global prevalence of glaucoma and projections of glaucoma burden through 2040: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ophthalmology. 2014;121(11):2081–2090. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.05.013
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feldman RM, Cioffi GA, Liebmann JM, Weinreb RN. Current knowledge and attitudes concerning cost-effectiveness in glaucoma pharmacotherapy: a Glaucoma Specialists Focus Group Study. Clin Ophthalmol. 2020;14:729–739. doi:10.2147/OPTH.S236030
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lorenz K, Wolfram C, Breitscheidel L, Shlaen M, Verboven Y, Pfeiffer N. Direct cost and predictive factors for treatment in patients with ocular hypertension or early, moderate and advanced primary open-angle glaucoma: the CoGIS study in Germany. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2013;251(8):2019–2028. doi:10.1007/s00417-013-2354-z
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Traverso CE, Walt JG, Kelly SP, et al. Direct costs of glaucoma and severity of the disease: a multinational long term study of resource utilisation in Europe. Br J Ophthalmol. 2005;89(10):1245–1249. doi:10.1136/bjo.2005.067355
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mills RP, Budenz DL, Lee PP, et al. Categorizing the stage of glaucoma from pre-diagnosis to end-stage disease. Am J Ophthalmol. 2006;141(1):24–30. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2005.07.044
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Glaucoma Society. Terminology and Guidelines for Glaucoma. 5th ed. Savona (Italy): PubliComm; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• van Gestel A, Webers CA, Severens JL, et al. The long-term outcomes of four alternative treatment strategies for primary open-angle glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol. 2012;90(1):20–31. doi:10.1111/j.1755-3768.2011.02318.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim CY, Park KH, Ahn J, et al. Treatment patterns and medication adherence of patients with glaucoma in South Korea. Br J Ophthalmol. 2017;101(6):801–807. doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2016-308505
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newman-Casey PA, Niziol LM, Gillespie BW, Janz NK, Lichter PR, Musch DC. The association between medication adherence and visual field progression in the Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study. Ophthalmology. 2020;127(4):477–483. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2019.10.022
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pisella PJ, Pouliquen P, Baudouin C. Prevalence of ocular symptoms and signs with preserved and preservative free glaucoma medication. Br J Ophthalmol. 2002;86(4):418–423. doi:10.1136/bjo.86.4.418
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lallemand F, Daull P, Benita S, Buggage R, Garrigue JS. Successfully improving ocular drug delivery using the cationic nanoemulsion, novasorb. J Drug Deliv. 2012;2012:604204. doi:10.1155/2012/604204
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Neumann PJ, Ganiats TG, Russell LB, Sanders GD, Siegel JE, eds. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Briggs A, Sculpher M, Claxton K. Decision Modelling for Health Economic Evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Mylla Boso AL, Gasperi E, Fernandes L, Costa VP, Alves M. Impact of ocular surface disease treatment in patients with glaucoma. Clin Ophthalmol. 2020;14:103–111. doi:10.2147/OPTH.S229815
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daull P, Amrane M, Garrigue JS. Novasorb® cationic nanoemulsion and latanoprost: the ideal combination for glaucoma management? J Eye Dis Disord. 2017;2:14. doi:10.35248/2684-1622.17.2.107
   Google Scholar
• Ismail D, Amrane M, Garrigue JS, Buggage R. A phase 2, randomized study evaluating the safety and efficacy of Catioprost® (unpreserved latanoprost 0.005% emulsion) compared to Travatan Z® in subjects with glaucoma and ocular surface disease. Acta Ophthalmol. 2011;89(s248 Suppl 227). doi:10.1111/j.1755-3768.2011.227.x
   Google Scholar
• Santen. A phase III multinational multicenter investigator-masked randomised active-controlled trial comparing the efficacy and safety of DE-130A with Xalatan® in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. NLM identifier: NCT04133311. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04133311. Accessed August 27, 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Graf von der Schulenburg JM, Greiner W, Jost F, et al. German recommendations on health economic evaluation: third and updated version of the Hanover consensus. Value Health. 2008;11(4):539–544. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00301.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sonnenberg FA, Beck JR. Markov models in medical decision making: a practical guide. Med Decis Making. 1993;13(4):322–338. doi:10.1177/0272989X9301300409
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Annemans L, Genesté B, Jolain B. Early modelling for assessing health and economic outcomes of drug therapy. Value Health. 2000;3(6):427–434. doi:10.1046/j.1524-4733.2000.36007.x
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• IJzerman MJ, Koffijberg H, Fenwick E, Krahn M. Emerging use of early health technology assessment in medical product development: a scoping review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics. 2017;35(7):727–740. doi:10.1007/s40273-017-0509-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilkins GA. The IAU style manual (1989). The preparation of astronomical papers and reports. Transactions of the International Astronomical Union; 1990. Available from: https://www.iau.org/static/publications/stylemanual1989.pdf. Accessed July 26, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Statistisches Bundesamt. Sterbetafel (Periodensterbetafel): Deutschland, Jahre, Geschlecht, Vollendetes Alter [Life table (period life table): Germany, period of years, sex, completed age]. Available from: https://www-genesis.destatis.de/genesis/online?operation=abruftabelleBearbeiten&levelindex=2&levelid=1598869665666&auswahloperation=abruftabelleAuspraegungAuswaehlen&auswahlverzeichnis=ordnungsstruktur&auswahlziel=werteabruf&code=12621-0001&auswahltext=&werteabruf=Value+retrieval#abreadcrumb. Accessed August 31, 2020. German.
   Google Scholar
• O’Hagan A, Buck CE, Daneshkhah A, et al. Uncertain Judgements: Eliciting Experts’ Probabilities. Chichester: Wiley; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Lohr SL. Sampling: Design and Analysis. 2nd ed. Boston: Brooks/Cole; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA). Methods for health economic evaluations – a guideline based on current practices in Europe. Available from: https://eunethta.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Methods-for-health-economic-evaluations-A-guideline-based-on-current-practices-in-Europe_Guideline_Final-May-2015.pdf. Accessed January 2, 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Attema AE, Brouwer WBF, Claxton K. Discounting in economic evaluations. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36(7):745–758. doi:10.1007/s40273-018-0672-z
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Gestel A, Webers CA, Beckers HJ, et al. The relationship between visual field loss in glaucoma and health-related quality-of-life. Eye (Lond). 2010;24(12):1759–1769. doi:10.1038/eye.2010.133
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health (CADTH). Pharmacoeconomic review report. Cyclosporine (VERKAZIA). Available from: https://cadth.ca/sites/default/files/cdr/pharmacoeconomic/sr0615-verkazia-pharmacoeconomic-review-report.pdf. Accessed February 20, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• CompuGroup Medical Deutschland. LAUER-TAXE® download. Available from: https://www.cgm.com/deu_de/produkte/apotheke/lauer-taxe-en.html. Accessed November 30, 2020. German.
   Google Scholar
• IQVIA. MIDAS database; 2020. Available from: https://www.iqvia.com/solutions/commercialization/brand-strategy-and-management/market-measurement/midas. Accessed November 30, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Guterman C. Online Ausgabe der Gebührenordnung für Ärzte (GOÄ) [Online edition of healthcare tariffs]. Available from: http://www.e-bis.de/goae/defaultFrame.htm. Accessed November 10, 2020. German.
   Google Scholar
• Institut für das Entgeltsystem im Krankenhaus. Fallpauschalen-Katalog 2020 [Institute for the Hospital Remuneration System. Reimbursement tariffs handbook 2020]. Available from: https://www.g-drg.de/aG-DRG-System_2020/Fallpauschalen-Katalog/Fallpauschalen-Katalog_2020. Accessed November 10, 2020. German.
   Google Scholar
• Brouwer W, Rutten F, Koopmanschap M. Costing in economic evaluations. In: Drummond M, McGuire A, editors. Economic Evaluation in Health Care. Merging Theory with Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2001:68–93.
   Google Scholar
• Chuvarayan Y, Finger RP, Köberlein-Neu J. Economic burden of blindness and visual impairment in Germany from a societal perspective: a cost-of-illness study. Eur J Health Econ. 2020;21(1):115–127. doi:10.1007/s10198-019-01115-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kassenärztliche Bundesvereinigung (KBV). Einheitlicher Bewertungsmaßstab (EBM). Stand: 4. Quartal 2020. [Federal association of statutory health insurance physicians. Uniform evaluation standard. 4th quarter 2000]. Available from: https://www.kbv.de/media/sp/EBM_Gesamt_-_Stand_4._Quartal_2020.pdf. Accessed September 21, 2021. German.
   Google Scholar
• Briggs AH. Handling uncertainty in economic evaluation and presenting the results. In: Drummond M, McGuire A, editors. Economic Evaluation in Health Care. Merging Theory with Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2001:172–214.
   Google Scholar
• Hoffart J, Teichmann A, Wessler I. Biomedical research in Germany: the role of ethics committee and state medical association. Anesth Analg. 2011;112(3):501–503. doi:10.1213/ANE.0b013e31820acb75
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pagano M, Gauvreau K. Principles of Biostatistics. 2nd ed. Boston: Brooks/Cole; 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Stinnett AA, Paltiel AD. Estimating CE ratios under second-order uncertainty: the mean ratio versus the ratio of means. Med Decis Making. 1997;17(4):483–489. doi:10.1177/0272989X9701700414
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Black WC. The CE plane: a graphic representation of cost-effectiveness. Med Decis Making. 1990;10(3):212–214. doi:10.1177/0272989X9001000308
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stinnett AA, Mullahy J. Net health benefits: a new framework for the analysis of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Making. 1998;18(2 Suppl):S68–S80. doi:10.1177/0272989X98018002S09
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glick HA, Doshi JA, Sonnad SA, Polsky D. Economic Evaluation in Clinical Trials. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Fenwick E, Claxton K, Sculpher M. Representing uncertainty: the role of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Health Econ. 2001;10(8):779–787. doi:10.1002/hec.635
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fenwick E, O’Brien BJ, Briggs A. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves–facts, fallacies and frequently asked questions. Health Econ. 2004;13(5):405–415. doi:10.1002/hec.903
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gandjour A. Presenting Germany’s drug pricing rule as a cost-per-QALY rule. Health Care Manag Sci. 2012;15(2):103–107. doi:10.1007/s10729-011-9186-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thelen U, Schnober D, Schölzel S, et al. Long-term cost and efficacy analysis of latanoprost versus timolol in glaucoma patients in Germany. Int J Ophthalmol. 2013;6(2):155–159. doi:10.3980/j.issn.2222-3959.2013.02.09
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buxton MJ, Drummond MF, Van Hout BA, et al. Modelling in economic evaluation: an unavoidable fact of life. Health Econ. 1997;6(3):217–227. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199705)6:3<217::AID-HEC267>3.0.CO;2-W
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weinstein MC, O’Brien B, Hornberger J, et al. Principles of good practice for decision analytic modeling in health-care evaluation: report of the ISPOR task force on good research practices–modeling studies. Value Health. 2003;6(1):9–17. doi:10.1046/j.1524-4733.2003.00234.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atik A, Barton K, Azuara-Blanco A, Kerr NM. Health economic evaluation in ophthalmology. Br J Ophthalmol. 2021;105(5):602–607. doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2020-316880
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bartelt-Hofer J, Ben-Debba L, Flessa S. Systematic review of economic evaluations in primary open-angle glaucoma: decision analytic modeling insights. Pharmacoecon Open. 2020;4(1):5–12. doi:10.1007/s41669-019-0141-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caro JJ, Briggs AH, Siebert U, Kuntz KM; ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force. Modeling good research practices–overview: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM modeling good research practices task force–1. Value Health. 2012;15(6):796–803. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2012.06.012
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar