PURPOSE: To prospectively observe second-line treatment strategies, their clinical outcomes, and treatment costs in @entity1 with @entity726 or @entity2790 ( @entity2790 ) in France. METHODS: @entity1 were recruited between 1998 and 2000 in 37 centers and were followed for up to 2 years. Outcomes were numbers of and reasons for treatment changes, changes in clinical parameters (intraocular pressure [IOP] levels, @entity227 , and optic nerve excavation), and direct medical costs associated with @entity726 management in @entity1 receiving monotherapy or combination therapy. This article reports results of an interim analysis of 1-year follow-up data for @entity1 having at least two contacts with a study ophthalmologist. RESULTS: Data were analyzed for 283 @entity1 and 549 treated eyes. Ocular @entity551 monotherapy was used as first-line therapy in 92.0% of eyes. Second-line treatment was initiated an average of 3.4 0.5 years after diagnosis, primarily due to insufficient IOP control (62.8%). Mean IOP reductions after 1 year of second-line therapy were 3.0 mmHg in eyes treated with @entity42812 monotherapy versus 2.1 mmHg in those receiving beta-blocker monotherapy (p=0.02) and 5.4 mmHg in eyes treated with the @entity42812 + @entity6839 combination versus 4.1 mmHg in those receiving combination therapies that did not include @entity42812 (p=0.01). Although second-line treatment with @entity42812 was more costly than treatment with beta blockers, the average daily cost for @entity42812 monotherapy was similar to that for @entity1 who failed beta-blocker monotherapy, and @entity42812 + @entity6839 was less costly than therapeutic combinations without @entity42812 . CONCLUSIONS: Insufficient IOP control is the main reason for changing first-line treatment in @entity1 with @entity726 or @entity2790 . After 1 year, second-line treatment with @entity42812 , as mono-therapy or combined with @entity6839 , provides superior IOP control at an acceptable cost. Eur J Ophthalmol 2003; 13 (Suppl. 4): S5-S20.

Naturalistic, prospective study of XXXX treatment in France: Strategies, clinical outcomes, and costs at 1 year.

@entity1 :: ('9606', 'Species') :: ['Patients', 'patients'] @entity227 :: ('MESH:D014786', 'Disease') :: ['visual field defects'] @entity42812 :: ('MESH:C072042', 'Chemical') :: ['latanoprost'] @entity6839 :: ('MESH:D013999', 'Chemical') :: ['timolol'] @entity726 :: ('MESH:D005901', 'Disease') :: ['glaucoma'] @entity2790 :: ('MESH:D009798', 'Disease') :: ['OH', 'ocular hypertension'] @entity551 :: ('MESH:D007022', 'Disease') :: ['hypotensive']
@entity2790 :: (MESH:D009798,Disease) :: ['glaucoma and ocular hypertension']
