We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Effectiveness of Generic Latanoprost Versus Branded Prostaglandin Analogs for Primary Open Angle Glaucoma.
Ophthalmic Epidemiology 2018 September 7
PURPOSE: The purpose of the study is to determine the comparative effectiveness of generic latanoprost (GL) to its branded (BL) counterpart and other brand-name prostaglandin analogs (bPGAs) in preventing the need for additional therapy in the treatment of primary open angle glaucoma (POAG).
METHODS: Retrospective cohort study using US commercial medical claims data. All new POAG patients from 2000 to 2015 who initiated treatment with either GL or BL were included. Exclusion occurred for having less than 2 years of time in the plan prior to diagnosis, previous use of glaucoma medications, or any diagnosis of glaucoma other than POAG at any time. Analyses compared GL to BL and also to those who received any branded PGA after 2011 (when the generic became available). Cox proportional hazard regression was used to assess the hazards of filling a prescription for a second IOP-lowering medication or having surgical intervention, individually and either outcome combined.
RESULTS: A total of 6317 and 4150 POAG patients were treated with GL and BL, respectively. After 2010, 6317 GL and 3703 brand-name prostaglandin analog (bPGA) POAG patients met criteria for inclusion. After adjustment, compared to BL, the GL conferred a reduced hazard of having a glaucoma procedure performed (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.62-0.84, p < 0.001) and the combined outcome (HR = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.83-0.97, p = 0.006) but was not associated with having a second IOP medication (HR = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.87-1.03, p = 0.18). Compared to the bPGAs, however, GL conferred a reduced hazard in each comparison (second IOP medication HR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.81-0.94, p < 0.001; surgery HR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.61-0.81, p < 0.001; combined HR = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.79-0.92, p < 0.001). Sensitivity analyses confirmed these findings.
CONCLUSIONS: GL was no less and possibly more effective in preventing the need for additional intervention than branded PGAs.
METHODS: Retrospective cohort study using US commercial medical claims data. All new POAG patients from 2000 to 2015 who initiated treatment with either GL or BL were included. Exclusion occurred for having less than 2 years of time in the plan prior to diagnosis, previous use of glaucoma medications, or any diagnosis of glaucoma other than POAG at any time. Analyses compared GL to BL and also to those who received any branded PGA after 2011 (when the generic became available). Cox proportional hazard regression was used to assess the hazards of filling a prescription for a second IOP-lowering medication or having surgical intervention, individually and either outcome combined.
RESULTS: A total of 6317 and 4150 POAG patients were treated with GL and BL, respectively. After 2010, 6317 GL and 3703 brand-name prostaglandin analog (bPGA) POAG patients met criteria for inclusion. After adjustment, compared to BL, the GL conferred a reduced hazard of having a glaucoma procedure performed (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.62-0.84, p < 0.001) and the combined outcome (HR = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.83-0.97, p = 0.006) but was not associated with having a second IOP medication (HR = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.87-1.03, p = 0.18). Compared to the bPGAs, however, GL conferred a reduced hazard in each comparison (second IOP medication HR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.81-0.94, p < 0.001; surgery HR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.61-0.81, p < 0.001; combined HR = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.79-0.92, p < 0.001). Sensitivity analyses confirmed these findings.
CONCLUSIONS: GL was no less and possibly more effective in preventing the need for additional intervention than branded PGAs.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app