The SATMED-Q is a reliable and valid measure of treatment satisfaction, structured in six dimensions, and a summary composite score. Additional work is needed to assess sensitivity to change.

Aim: To conduct a meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) in order to evaluate the development of conjunctival hyperaemia after the use of latanoprost versus travoprost and bimatoprost, in patients with ocular hypertension or glaucoma. Methods: In order to identify the potentially relevant RCTs, a systematic literature retrieval was conducted in Medline, Embase and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (1995-April 2007) databases The outcome measure was the appearance of conjunctival hyperaemia during the study. Statistical analyses included the calculation of odds ratio (OR) and its respective confidence interval, along with intertrial statistical heterogeneity. Publication bias was evaluated through a funnel plot, and a sensitivity analysis was also performed. Results: In total, 13 RCTs involving 2222 patients with ocular hypertension or glaucoma were included, five comparing latanoprost versus travoprost, seven comparing latanoprost versus bimatoprost and one comparing latanoprost versus travoprost and bimatoprost. The combined results showed that latanoprost produced lower occurrence of conjunctival hyperaemia than both travoprost (OR = 0.51; 95% CI 0.39 to 0.67, p,0.0001) and bimatoprost (OR = 0.32; 95% CI 0.24 to 0.42, p,0.0001). No significant heterogeneity was found between the included RCTs. There was no evidence of publication bias. In the sensitivity analysis performed, none of the clinical trials included in this meta-analysis has an important impact in the global estimation of OR. Conclusions: According to available data, the use of latanoprost is associated with a lower incidence of conjunctival hyperaemia when compared with travoprost and bimatoprost in the treatment of patients with ocular hypertension or glaucoma.The estimated prevalence of glaucoma is 2% in the general population, 3% in people over 50, 5.7% in subjects 73 and 74 years old and 23.2% in those aged 75 years and older. This number is expected to increase in the future, given the progressive ageing of the population. 1-3For patients with ocular hypertension or openangle glaucoma, drug therapy focuses on reducing intraocular pressure (IOP) levels in order to delay or prevent the progression of ocular hypertension to glaucoma, and to slow disease progression in glaucoma patients. 4 5 In both cases, patients require lifelong treatment and follow-up care to preserve vision, so it is essential long-term patient compliance and medication persistency, because those who do not continue therapy risk developing elevated IOP levels and, over time, progressing to blindness. 6Compliance and persistency depends on many factors, including patient satisfaction with medication, medication costs, ease of medication administration and patient understanding of the importance of taking their medication over the long term, although one of the most important factors is local and systemic side effects. Currently, first-line treatment usually consists of monotherapy with a topical hypotensive drug. Although ophthalmologists traditionall...

No abstract

In 2007, spending on orphan drugs in five European countries was acceptable in terms of the percentage of these countries' overall drug expenditure. Mean annual costs per patient of orphan drugs varied widely, with costs being related to the prevalence of the disease for which the product is indicated.

The number of studies presenting a pharmacoeconomic evaluation has increased progressively; however, the quality of the studies has not improved in parallel. The existence of different types of pharmacoeconomic studies does not justify their arbitrary use and the achievement of valid conclusions must be based on sound knowledge of the concepts employed, as well as on use of the most adequate tool in each instance. By evaluating pharmacoeconomic studies systematically, the more common errors (i.e., in planning the study or interpreting the results) can be detected and thus prevented. The checklist we present has 12 sections, each of which includes several subsections. After evaluating the corresponding subsections, each section is labeled as "correct," "acceptable," "doubtful," "incorrect," or "not applicable." From this qualitative evaluation, aspects that have been dealt with correctly and those needing improvement will become apparent. Also, the checklist permits the user to verify whether the results have been correctly obtained and, therefore, whether the conclusions are valid. The use of a checklist for evaluating pharmacoeconomic studies may be useful for researchers, journal editors, and the audience when performing, receiving, reading, or accepting a clinical economic study.