Purchase this article with an account.
Joanna Campbell, Gail Schwartz, Britni LaBounty, Jonathan Kowalski, Vaishali Patel; Patient Adherence and Persistence with Topical Ocular Hypotensive Therapy: a Claims-Based Comparison of Bimatoprost 0.01% and Travoprost with sofZia. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2013;54(15):4403.
Download citation file:
© ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)
To compare patients’ adherence and persistence with bimatoprost 0.01% and travoprost 0.004% with sofZia ocular hypotensive therapy in real-world settings.
Pharmaceutical claims from a major, longitudinal database of prescription and medical claims for >115 million patients were analyzed. Patients with an initial prescription for bimatoprost 0.01% or travoprost 0.004% with sofZia between April and June 2011, and with no medication claim for a topical prostaglandin analog or prostamide during the previous 18 months, were identified. Persistence over 12 months was assessed using Kaplan-Meier survival analyses, assuming a 30-day grace period for prescription refill. Adherence was measured as the mean and median proportion of days covered (PDC) with drug supply (calculated using the number of drops/bottle and dose), and the proportions of patients with PDC ≤0.2 and >0.8.
In total, 10,470 patients were included in the adherence analysis (4,131 on bimatoprost 0.01%; 6,339 on travoprost 0.004% with sofZia) and 12,985 patients in the persistence analysis (5,099 on bimatoprost 0.01%; 7,886 on travoprost with sofZia). Overall adherence was greater with bimatoprost 0.01% than with travoprost 0.004% with sofZia (mean PDC 54.0% vs 48.6%, p<0.001; median PDC 51.2% vs 46.0%, p<0.001), and more patients showed high adherence (PDC > 0.8) with bimatoprost than with travoprost (29.1% vs 22.3%, p<0.001). Similar proportions of patients had low adherence (PDC ≤0.2) with bimatoprost 0.01% and travoprost with sofZia (20.7% vs 22.2%; p>0.05). Significantly more patients remained on continuous treatment with bimatoprost than with travoprost over the 12-month follow-up period (29.5% [95% CI 28.3-30.8%] vs 24.2% [95% CI 23.2-25.2%], p<0.001). Sensitivity analyses performed in subcohorts of elderly (≥65 years) patients and ocular hypotensive treatment-naïve patients produced qualitatively similar findings.
In clinical practice, patients demonstrated superior adherence and persistence with bimatoprost 0.01% than with travoprost 0.004% with sofZia ophthalmic solution.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only