Cost comparison of prostaglandin analogues: a Canadian population-based analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Glaucoma is a fairly common disease, however, little is known about the costs associated with prostaglandin analogues (PAs). The costs between the three available PAs (Lumigan (bimatoprost), Xalatan (latanoprost) and Travatan (travoprost)) were compared as monotherapy and when adjunctive therapy was used. METHODS: From the Québec drug claims database, all patients who used these drugs for 1 full year were identified. From the Ministry of Health (MoH) perspective, the average cost for all reimbursed costs (drug costs and pharmacist fees) were calculated. Those costs plus the patient out-of-pocket copayments were used for the payer + user (PU) perspective. RESULTS: Data from 4,653 patients were analysed (3,606 on monotherapy and 1,047 on combination treatment with adjunctive therapy), 59.7% were females, and the average age was 72.6 +/- 10.4 years. MoH perspective costs were $410 +/- $167 for bimatoprost, $381 +/- $145 for latanoprost and $298 +/- $121 for travoprost (all differences p<0.001), for patients on monotherapy. Costs of combination treatment with adjunctive therapy were $786 +/- $416, $686 +/- $313, and $623 +/- $521, respectively (travoprost significantly lower than each of the other two p<0.001, others=not significant). Results from the PU perspective were comparable. CONCLUSIONS: Travoprost had the lowest cost, both as monotherapy and in conjunction with other glaucoma treatments. Further comparative pharmacoeconomic evaluation is warranted.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".