![Page 1: Economic Evaluation of Loteprednol Etabonate versus Prednisolone in the Treatment of Ocular Inflammation Lindy Forte, MSc VALORE Research, Toronto, Canada](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081811/5697bf991a28abf838c91b0d/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Economic Evaluation of Economic Evaluation of Loteprednol Etabonate versus Loteprednol Etabonate versus
Prednisolone in the Treatment of Prednisolone in the Treatment of Ocular InflammationOcular Inflammation
Lindy Forte, MScVALORE Research,
Toronto, Canada
Disclosure: The author has received research funding and travel expense reimbursement from Bausch and Lomb
![Page 2: Economic Evaluation of Loteprednol Etabonate versus Prednisolone in the Treatment of Ocular Inflammation Lindy Forte, MSc VALORE Research, Toronto, Canada](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081811/5697bf991a28abf838c91b0d/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
IntroductionIntroduction Topical corticosteroids have been the standard
of care in the treatment of ocular inflammation.
Side effects of topical corticosteroids include: increased intraocular pressure (IOP), risk of cataract formation with long term use, and decreased resistance to infection.
Loteprednol etabonate is a unique corticosteroid: quickly metabolized to inactive metabolites less propensity to cause IOP increase provides ocular specificity and minimal systemic
absorption
![Page 3: Economic Evaluation of Loteprednol Etabonate versus Prednisolone in the Treatment of Ocular Inflammation Lindy Forte, MSc VALORE Research, Toronto, Canada](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081811/5697bf991a28abf838c91b0d/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Study PurposeStudy Purpose
To determine the cost-effectiveness of loteprednol etabonate relative to other commonly used steroids in the management of ocular inflammation.
![Page 4: Economic Evaluation of Loteprednol Etabonate versus Prednisolone in the Treatment of Ocular Inflammation Lindy Forte, MSc VALORE Research, Toronto, Canada](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081811/5697bf991a28abf838c91b0d/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
MethodsMethods MEDLINE search for studies reporting results of
randomized controlled clinical trials: loteprednol etabonate versus corticosteroid
comparators, conducted in patients having either post-operative
inflammation, acute anterior uveitis, giant papillary conjunctivitis, or seasonal allergic conjunctivitis.
Data extraction: rates of anti-inflammatory efficacy, proportions of patients with clinically significant
intraocular pressure (IOP) elevation. Perspective:
Healthcare system
![Page 5: Economic Evaluation of Loteprednol Etabonate versus Prednisolone in the Treatment of Ocular Inflammation Lindy Forte, MSc VALORE Research, Toronto, Canada](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081811/5697bf991a28abf838c91b0d/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Methods (con’t)Methods (con’t) Resource Use and Costing:
resources utilized to manage ocular inflammation and IOP elevation obtained from a panel of five ophthalmologists,
resource costs were collected from the panel and from the U.S. Dept of Veteran’s Affairs formulary.
![Page 6: Economic Evaluation of Loteprednol Etabonate versus Prednisolone in the Treatment of Ocular Inflammation Lindy Forte, MSc VALORE Research, Toronto, Canada](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081811/5697bf991a28abf838c91b0d/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
ResultsResults
Included Studies Two of 51 publications met the inclusion criteria Excluded papers:
not RCTS or lacked active corticosteroid comparator off-label uses duplicate publications
Novack et al. reported results of a pooled analysis of RCTs (n=1648) mixed group of patients (n=1648) treated with loteprednol
etabonate (0.2% or 0.5%) or prednisolone acetate 1% for 28 days or longer.
Bartlett et al. reported results of a single RCT Patients (n=19) with a history of corticosteroid responsiveness
treated with loteprednol etabonate 0.5% or prednisolone acetate 1%.
![Page 7: Economic Evaluation of Loteprednol Etabonate versus Prednisolone in the Treatment of Ocular Inflammation Lindy Forte, MSc VALORE Research, Toronto, Canada](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081811/5697bf991a28abf838c91b0d/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Results (con’t)Results (con’t)Efficacy Differences between loteprednol etabonate and
prednisolone acetate in control of inflammation were not reported
Incidence of clinically significant IOP elevation*
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
PooledIndications
KnownSteroid
Responders
Loteprednol 0.5%
Prednisolone 1%
*pooled indication study: IOP ≥ 10 mm Hg; known steroid responder study: IOP > 15 mm Hg
![Page 8: Economic Evaluation of Loteprednol Etabonate versus Prednisolone in the Treatment of Ocular Inflammation Lindy Forte, MSc VALORE Research, Toronto, Canada](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081811/5697bf991a28abf838c91b0d/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Results (con’t)Results (con’t) Mixed indication study
Loteprednol saved an average of $8.24 per patient
![Page 9: Economic Evaluation of Loteprednol Etabonate versus Prednisolone in the Treatment of Ocular Inflammation Lindy Forte, MSc VALORE Research, Toronto, Canada](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081811/5697bf991a28abf838c91b0d/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Results (con’t)Results (con’t) Known steroid responders study
Loteprednol saved an average of $65.43 per patient
![Page 10: Economic Evaluation of Loteprednol Etabonate versus Prednisolone in the Treatment of Ocular Inflammation Lindy Forte, MSc VALORE Research, Toronto, Canada](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081811/5697bf991a28abf838c91b0d/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
ConclusionsConclusions
Mixed indication Incidence of clinically significant IOP elevation:
Loteprednol 1.7% Prednisolone 6.7% Loteprednol saved $8.24 per patient
Known steroid responders Incidence of clinically significant IOP elevation:
Loteprednol 7.1% Prednisolone 30.8% Loteprednol saved $65.43 per patient
![Page 11: Economic Evaluation of Loteprednol Etabonate versus Prednisolone in the Treatment of Ocular Inflammation Lindy Forte, MSc VALORE Research, Toronto, Canada](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081811/5697bf991a28abf838c91b0d/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
DiscussionDiscussion Health system perspective showed that the
lower acquisition cost of prednisolone acetate was completely offset by the resources required to manage IOP elevation.
Analysis was somewhat conservative as the potential for IOP elevation to go undetected with serious consequences was not considered.
Results will depend upon local practice patterns and drug costs.