Back to Journals » Clinical Ophthalmology » Volume 8

Patient adherence and persistence with topical ocular hypotensive therapy in real-world practice: a comparison of bimatoprost 0.01% and travoprost Z 0.004% ophthalmic solutions

Authors Campbell J, Schwartz G, LaBounty B, Kowalski J, Patel V

Received 5 June 2013

Accepted for publication 13 October 2013

Published 14 May 2014 Volume 2014:8 Pages 927—935

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S49467

Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single-blind

Peer reviewer comments 2


Joanna H Campbell,1 Gail F Schwartz,2 Britni LaBounty,3 Jonathan W Kowalski,1 Vaishali D Patel1

1Allergan, Inc., Irvine, CA, USA; 2Greater Baltimore Medical Center and Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA; 3Principled Strategies, Inc., Encinitas, CA, USA

Background: Effective control of intraocular pressure is predicated upon patient compliance with pharmacotherapy. We compared patient adherence and persistence with two new ocular hypotensive formulations, using real-world utilization data.
Methods: This observational cohort study employed pharmacy claims data from the Source® Lx (Wolters Kluwer Pharma Solutions) database. Patients with an initial (index) prescription for topical bimatoprost 0.01% or travoprost Z (April to June 2011) and no claim for ophthalmic prostaglandin or prostamide analogs within the previous 18 months were identified. Treatment adherence was expressed as proportion of days covered with study medication during the first 365 days after the index prescription. Treatment persistence with study medication was assessed over the first 12 months using Kaplan–Meier survival analyses, allowing a maximum 30-day gap for prescription refill. Treatment status was determined monthly over this period.
Results: A total of 12,985 patients were assessed for treatment adherence, and 10,470 for treatment persistence. Adherence was better with bimatoprost 0.01% than with travoprost Z (mean proportion of days covered 0.540 versus [vs] 0.486, P<0.001), and more patients showed high adherence (proportion of days covered >0.80) with bimatoprost 0.01% than travoprost Z (29.1% vs 22.3%, P<0.001). Continuous 12-month persistence was higher with bimatoprost 0.01% than with travoprost Z (29.5% vs 24.2%, P<0.001). At month 12, more patients were on treatment with bimatoprost 0.01% than travoprost Z (48.8% vs 45.7%, P<0.01). Similar findings were demonstrated in cohorts of ocular hypotensive treatment-naïve patients, branded latanoprost switchers, and older patients (age ≥65 years), and after inclusion of patient characteristics as covariates.
Conclusion: For patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension, bimatoprost 0.01% offers compliance advantages over travoprost Z.

Keywords: ocular hypotensive, bimatoprost, travoprost, treatment compliance


Creative Commons License This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.

Download Article [PDF]  View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]