Comparison of Physical Properties and Annual Costs of Two Multi-dose Eye Drops Containing Latanoprost

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 8 Sayı: 2, 153 - 157, 01.05.2022

İbrahim Tuncer

https://doi.org/10.53394/akd.1057685

Öz

ABSTRACT
Objectives: To compare of drop volume, number of drops per milliliter, number of drops in bottle, bottle volume and annual costs of two multi-dose eye drops containing latanoprost.
Materials and Methods: Xalatan and Latapol eye drops available in Turkey were included in this study. The first 10 drops volume was measured with a micropipette and the average of the drop volume was found. The repeatability coefficient of the first 10 drops volume was calculated. Number of drops per milliliter, number of drops in bottle and bottle volume were measured in a graduated cylinder calibrated in increments of 0.1 ml. The annual cost was calculated based on the number of drops in the bottle.
Results: The drop volume was 27.56 µl and 27.66 µl for Xalatan and Latapol, respectively (p=0.729). The lowest-highest drop volume and repeatability coefficient for Xalatan were 26-29 µl and ±1.39 µl, respectively, 25-30 µl and ±1.93 µl for Latapol. The number of drops per milliliter, the number of drops in the bottle and the bottle volume for Xalatan were 36.27 drops, 99 drops and 2.77 ml, respectively, 35.47 drops, 93.66 drops and 2.66 ml for Latapol (p=0.672, p=0.007 and p =0.008, respectively). The cost per drop and the annual cost for Xalatan were 0.2101 ₺ and 153.37 ₺ respectively, 0.2220 and 162.11 ₺ for Latapol (p=0.031 and p=0.010, respectively).
Conclusion: The number of drops in bottle and bottle volume of Xalatan is significantly higher than Latapol, which causes the annual cost of Xalatan to be significantly lower.

Key Words: Drop volume, Drop number, Eye drop, Latanoprost, Cost

Anahtar Kelimeler

Drop volume, Drop number, Eye drop, Latanoprost, Cost

Latanoprost İçeren İki Çoklu Doz Göz Damlasının Fiziksel Özelliklerinin ve Yıllık Maliyetlerinin Karşılaştırılması

Öz

ÖZ
Amaç: Latanoprost içeren iki çoklu doz göz damlasının damla hacmi, mililitredeki damla sayısı, şişedeki damla sayısı, şişe hacmi ve yıllık maliyetleri bakımından karşılaştırılması.
Gereç ve Yöntem: Türkiye’de elde edilebilir olan Xalatan ve Latapol göz damlaları çalışmaya alındı. İlk 10 damlanın hacimleri mikropipetle ölçülüp ortalaması alınarak damla hacmi bulundu. İlk 10 damla için tekrarlanabilirlik katsayısı hesaplandı. Mililitredeki damla sayısı, şişedeki damla sayısı ve şişe hacmi hesaplanırken 0.1 ml’lik artışları olan dereceli silindir kullanıldı. Yıllık maliyet şişedeki damla sayısına göre hesaplandı.
Bulgular: Damla hacmi Xalatan ve Latapol için sırasıyla 27.56 µl ve 27.66 µl idi (p=0.729). Xalatan için en düşük-en yüksek damla hacmi ve tekrarlanabilirlik katsayısı sırasıyla 26-29 µl ve ±1.39 µl, Latapol için ise 25-30 µl ve ±1.93 µl bulundu. Xalatan için mililitredeki damla sayısı, şişedeki damla sayısı ve şişe hacmi sırasıyla 36.27 damla, 99 damla ve 2.77 ml, Latapol için ise 35.47 damla, 93.66 damla ve 2.66 ml idi (sırasıyla p=0.672, p=0.007 ve p=0.008). Xalatan için damla başına maliyet ve yıllık damla maliyeti sırasıyla 0.2101 ₺ ve 153.37 ₺, Latapol için ise 0.2220 ₺ ve 162.11 ₺ idi (sırasıyla p=0.031 ve p=0.010).
Sonuç: Xalatan’ın şişedeki damla sayısı ve şişe hacmi Latapol’dan anlamlı olarak yüksek olup bu durum Xalatan’ın yıllık maliyetinin anlamlı olarak düşük olmasına yol açmaktadır.

Anahtar Sözcükler: Damla hacmi, Damla sayısı, Göz damlası, Latanoprost, Maliyet

Anahtar Kelimeler

Damla hacmi, Damla sayısı, Göz damlası, Latanoprost, Maliyet

Kaynakça

• 1. Hejkal TW, Camras CB. Prostaglandin analogs in the treatment of glaucoma. Semin Ophthalmol. 1999;14:114-123.
• 2. Lin L, Zhao YJ, Chew PT, Sng CC, Wong HT, Yip LW, Wu TS, Bautista D, Teng M, Khoo AL, Lim BP. Comparative efficacy and tolerability of topical prostaglandin analogues for primary open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Ann Pharmacother. 2014;48:1585-1593.
• 3. Kolko M, Horwitz A, Thygesen J, Jeppesen J, Torp-Pedersen C. The Prevalence and Incidence of Glaucoma in Denmark in a Fifteen Year Period: A Nationwide Study. PLoS One. 2015;16:e0132048.
• 4. Okeke CO, Quigley HA, Jampel HD, Ying GS, Plyler RJ, Jiang Y, Friedman DS. Interventions improve poor adherence with once daily glaucoma medications in electronically monitored patients. Ophthalmology. 2009;116:2286-2293.
• 5. Newman-Casey PA, Robin AL, Blachley T, Farris K, Heisler M, Resnicow K, Lee PP. The most common barriers to glaucoma medication adherence: a cross-sectional survey. Ophthalmology. 2015;122:1308-1316.
• 6. Stone JL, Robin AL, Novack GD, Covert DW, Cagle GD. An objective evaluation of eyedrop instillation in patients with glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 2009;127:732-736.
• 7. Hennessy AL, Katz J, Covert D, Protzko C, Robin AL. Videotaped evaluation of eyedrop instillation in glaucoma patients with visual impairment or moderate to severe visual field loss. Ophthalmology. 2010;117:2345–2352.
• 8. Van Santvliet L, Ludwig A. Determinants of eye drop size. Surv Ophthalmol. 2004;49:197–213.
• 9. Mishima S, Gasset A, Kylce S, Baum J. Determination of tear volume and tear flow. Inv Ophthalmol. 1966;5:264-276.
• 10. Moore DB, Beck J, Kryscio RJ. An objective assessment of the variability in number of drops per bottle of glaucoma medication. BMC Ophthalmol. 2017;17:78.
• 11. Kolko M, Koch Jensen P. The physical properties of generic latanoprost ophthalmic solutions are not identical.Acta Ophthalmol. 2017;95:370-373.
• 12. German EJ, Hurst MA, Wood D. Reliability of drop size from multi-dose eye drop bottles: is it cause for concern? Eye (Lond). 1999;13:93-100.
• 13. Kumar S, Karki R, Meena M, Prakash T, Rajeswari T, Goli D. Reduction in drop size of ophthalmic topical drop preparations and the impact of treatment. J Adv Pharm Technol Res. 2011;2:192-194.
• 14. Aritürk N, Oge I, Erkan D, Süllü Y, Sahin M. The effects of nasolacrimal canal blockage on topical medications for glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1996;74:411-413.
• 15. Baudouin C, Labbé A, Liang H, Pauly A, Brignole-Baudouin F. Preservatives in eyedrops: the good, the bad and the ugly. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2010;29:312-334.
• 16. Malhotra M, Majumdar DK. Permeation through cornea. Indian J Exp Biol. 2001;39:11-24.
• 17. Zore M, Harris A, Tobe LA, Siesky B, Januleviciene I, Behzadi J, Amireskandari A, Egan P, Garff K, Wirostko B. Generic medications in ophthalmology. Br J Ophthalmol. 2013;97:253-257.
• 18. Tripp GK, Good KL, Motta MJ, Kass PH, Murphy CJ. The effect of needle gauge, needle type, and needle orientation on the volume of a drop. Vet Ophthalmol. 2016;19:38-42.
• 19. Petursson G, Cole R, Hanna C. Treatment of glaucoma using mini-drops of clonidine. Arch Ophthalmol. 1984;102:1180–1181.
• 20. Mauger TF, Craig El. Mosby's Ocular Drug Handbook. Mosby, St. Louis. 1996;8.
• 21. Patton T, Francoeur M. Ocular bioavailability and systemic loss of topically applied ophthalmic drugs. Am J Ophthalmol. 1978;85:225-229.
• 22. Brown C, Hanna C. Use of dilute drug solutions for routine cycloplegia and mydriasis. Am J Ophthalmol. 1978;86:820-824.
• 23. Chrai SS, Makoid MC, Eriksen SP, Robinson JR. Drop size and initial dosing frequency problems of topically applied ophthalmic drugs. J Pharm Sci. 1974;63:333-338.
• 24. Angmo D, Wadhwani M, Velpandian T, Kotnal A, Sihota R, Dada T. Evaluation of physical properties and dose equivalency of generic versus branded latanoprost formulations. Int Ophthalmol. 2017;37:423-428.
• 25. Queen JH, Feldman RM, Lee DA. Variation in Number of Doses, Bottle Volume, and Calculated Yearly Cost of Generic and Branded Latanoprost for Glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 2016;163:70-74.e1.