4.2 Article

The Impact of Ocular Adverse Effects in Patients Treated With Topical Prostaglandin Analogs: Changes in Prescription Patterns and Patient Persistence

Journal

JOURNAL OF OCULAR PHARMACOLOGY AND THERAPEUTICS
Volume 25, Issue 2, Pages 145-152

Publisher

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/jop.2008.0072

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Pfizer Inc, New York, New York, USA

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To document patient/physician perceptions of adverse effects and their relationship to medication changes among patients prescribed prostaglandin analogs. Methods: Medical/pharmacy claims (private U. S. health network) identified patients filling initial topical ocular hypotensive prescriptions from 2001 to 2004; 300 open-angle glaucoma patients prescribed a prostaglandin analog and 103 ophthalmologists were selected by algorithm for telephone interviews. Medical charts for 225/300 interviewed and 75 non-interviewed patients were abstracted. Medication patterns were assessed in pharmacy claims data. Frequency of adverse effects noted by physicians and associations with medication change decisions were examined in charted data. Patients' experiences with adverse effects were compiled from surveys. Results: In patients treated with latanoprost (N = 4,071), bimatoprost (N = 1,199), or travoprost (N = 1,001), continuous refill of medication through 1 year was seen in 11%, 9%, and 5% of patients, respectively (P = 0.0001; retrospective pharmacy claims). Adverse effects were the second most common reasons noted by physicians for switching medications after lack of efficacy (19% vs. 43%, respectively). Adverse effects were noted in 65% of patient charts. Hyperemia was the most common adverse effect occurring with at least one other adverse effect in 48% of patients with the condition. Conclusions: Ocular adverse effects, particularly hyperemia, negatively affect patient continuation with therapy and switching.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available