--- title: "BIM-IOL System in Open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension: cost-effectiveness analyses and utility weights" description: "Published cost-effectiveness analyses and health-state utility weights for BIM-IOL System in Open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension, each value quoted from the article: 13 cost-effectiveness analyses and 8 studies reporting utility weights. Analyses: Hydrus or iStent inject with cataract surgery versus cataract surgery alone or medication management in mild to moderate primary open-angle glaucoma, United States: Sood et al. (2022); Latanoprost versus timolol in open-angle and exfoliation glaucoma, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and the United Kingdom: Stewart et al. (2009); Bimatoprost versus latanoprost, travoprost, tafluprost, and timolol in open-angle glaucoma, United States: Brown and Brown (2019); Generic prostaglandin analogs and laser trabeculoplasty versus observation in newly diagnosed mild open-angle glaucoma, United States: Stein et al. (2012); 9 further articles. Utility weights: Utility weights for mild, moderate, advanced, and severe glaucoma and incisional surgery, open-angle glaucoma: Sood et al. (2022); Utility weights for mild, moderate, and severe glaucoma, unilateral and bilateral blindness, and laser trabeculoplasty side effects, open-angle glaucoma: Stein et al. (2012); Utility weights for mild, moderate, and advanced glaucoma, blindness, medication side effects, and incisional surgery, open-angle glaucoma: Atik et al. (2022); Utility weights for open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension stages 0 to 5 and severe ocular surface disease, open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension: Canut et al. (2025); 4 further articles. Every value is a verbatim quote from the primary article it is shown with." canonical: "https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/bim-iol-system--open-angle-glaucoma-or-ocular-hypertension/cost-effectiveness-analyses" published: "2026-10-22T07:49:06-04:00" modified: "2026-10-22T07:49:06-04:00" --- # BIM-IOL System in Open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension: cost-effectiveness analyses and utility weights Published cost-effectiveness analyses and health-state utility weights that a model of this product could cite, adapt, or compare against, grouped by how each article relates to the product and its indication. Every value is quoted from the article it cites, and section 3 lists the searches that found the articles. ## Overview | Item | Detail | | --- | --- | | Literature searched | Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, searched October 21, 2026; the queries are listed in section 3. | | Cost-effectiveness analyses | 13 | | Studies reporting utility weights | 8 | ## 1 Cost-effectiveness analyses ### 1.1 Analyses of BIM-IOL System No evidence found. ### 1.2 Treatments for the same indication #### Hydrus or iStent inject with cataract surgery versus cataract surgery alone or medication management in mild to moderate primary open-angle glaucoma, United States: Sood et al. (2022) Relevance: Compares Hydrus and iStent inject trabecular meshwork stents with cataract surgery, and cataract surgery alone, with initial nonsurgical management from a U.S. societal perspective, the setting of combined cataract and glaucoma surgery listed in section 2 in which the BIM-IOL System is implanted. > “PURPOSE: To investigate the costs and effects of implanting trabecular meshwork bypass stents during cataract surgery from a societal perspective in the United States.” > “DESIGN: Cost-utility analysis using Markov models and efficacy/safety data from published pivotal or randomized control trials (RCTs) of devices investigated.” > “PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged 65 years and older with mild to moderate primary open-angle glaucoma with or without visually significant cataract.” > “With the use of Markov models, glaucoma progression through 4 glaucoma states (mild, moderate, advanced, severe/blind) and death were simulated over 35 years.” > “Over 35 years in the base case, the Hydrus (Ivantis, Inc.) implanted with cataract surgery arm cost $48 026.13 and gained 12.26 QALYs. The iStent inject (Glaukos Corp.) implanted with cataract surgery arm cost $49 599.86 and gained 12.21 QALYs. Cataract surgery alone cost $54 409.25 and gained 12.04 QALYs. Initial nonsurgical management cost $57 931.22 and gained 11.74 QALY.” > “The device arms dominated or were cost-effective compared with cataract surgery alone within 5 years and throughout sensitivity analyses.” > “The iStent inject arm was cost-effective in 94.19% of iterations in probabilistic sensitivity analyses, whereas the Hydrus arm was cost-effective in 94.69% of iterations.” Source: [Sood et al. (2022)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34563713/) #### Latanoprost versus timolol in open-angle and exfoliation glaucoma, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and the United Kingdom: Stewart et al. (2009) Relevance: Compares timolol, the topical comparator given twice daily to the control arms of the Rhine and Rhone trials, with latanoprost, a prostaglandin analog listed in section 2, in Scandinavia and the United Kingdom. > “A Markov model was constructed to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis.” > “Health states were 'stable' and 'progressed' glaucoma, and transition probabilities for both primary open-angle and exfoliation glaucoma were derived from the medical literature.” > “Country specific unit costs were used for medications, patient visits, diagnostics, and therapeutic procedures.” > “Over the life of the model latanoprost was less expensive than timolol by 5.3-7.6% (Scandinavia) and 2.1% (UK).” > “Following adjustments, therapy in the original timolol-treated cohort was slightly more effective in each country with a difference in 0.003-0.015 years to progression of glaucoma existing between latanoprost.” > “The associated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for latanoprost vs timolol generated by the Scandinavian and the UK models, respectively, were: Norway 351,396 NOK; Sweden 988,985 SEK; Denmark 351,641; and the UK 4751 GBP.” > “Over 5 years, in the UK timolol is the cost-effective option, whereas in Scandinavia latanoprost may be the cost-effective alternative to timolol.” Source: [Stewart et al. (2009)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17721497/) #### Bimatoprost versus latanoprost, travoprost, tafluprost, and timolol in open-angle glaucoma, United States: Brown and Brown (2019) Relevance: Compares bimatoprost, the active ingredient of the BIM-IOL System, with latanoprost, tafluprost, travoprost, and timolol for open-angle glaucoma in the United States from ophthalmic, third-party insurer, and societal cost perspectives. > “Value-Based Medicine®, incremental cost-utility analysis, and average cost-utility analysis were performed using published systematic review and network meta-analyses with 3-month clinical data for a base case of OAG with an untreated intraocular pressure of 26 mm Hg.” > “A 20-year model was undertaken; bilateral therapy was presumed; a national average Medicare Fee Schedule was used; and ophthalmic, third party insurer, and societal cost perspectives were utilized.” > “Patient value outcomes (QALYs or quality-adjusted life-years) and costs were discounted at 3% annually.” > “Bimatoprost conferred a mean 2.56 QALY gain (22.9% patient quality-of-life gain) for the average OAG patient” > “latanoprost conferred a 2.00 QALY gain (17.8% quality-of-life gain), tafluprost a 1.99 QALY gain (17.9% quality-of-life gain), travoprost a l.92 QALY gain (17.2% quality-of-life gain), and timolol a 1.42 QALY gain (12.8% quality-of-life gain).” > “The ophthalmic cost-perspective, incremental cost-utility ratio of bimatoprost referent to travoprost was $6,034/QALY, to latanoprost was $27,973/QALY, and to timolol was $16,063/QALY.” > “Bimatoprost dominated tafluprost, meaning that it conferred greater patient value for lesser cost than tafluprost.” Source: [Brown and Brown (2019)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30920338/) #### Generic prostaglandin analogs and laser trabeculoplasty versus observation in newly diagnosed mild open-angle glaucoma, United States: Stein et al. (2012) Relevance: Compares generic topical prostaglandin analogs and laser trabeculoplasty, first-line treatments listed in section 2, with observation in newly diagnosed mild open-angle glaucoma in the United States. > “In this cost effectiveness analysis, we compared treatment with PGAs, LTP, and observation only for patients with newly diagnosed OAG over a 25 year time horizon. The target population was a hypothetical cohort of patients, 60 years of age with mild OAG.” > “In our Markov model, we assumed that each cycle through the model was 1 year long.” > “All costs were in 2010 USD and we assumed a 3% discounting rate per year.” > “Over 25 years, the expected cost of untreated glaucoma for a single patient is $2700, the long-term cost of undergoing LTP is $13788, and the cost of receiving PGAs is $18101.” > “Over this same time period, the effectiveness for a glaucoma patient in the untreated group is 16.06 quality-adjusted life years (QALY), for a patient who underwent LTP is 16.71 QALYs, and for a patient receiving PGAs is 17.14 QALYs.” > “The incremental cost effectiveness of LTP over no treatment was $16824/QALY. But, the incremental cost effectiveness of PGAs over no treatment was $14179/QALY and it provides greater health-related quality of life relative to LTP.” > “If PGAs are actually 25% less effective than the effectiveness reflected in the clinical trials due to poor adherence, than LTP could be the preferred option.” Source: [Stein et al. (2012)](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3324653/) #### Hydrus Microstent with cataract surgery versus cataract surgery alone in mild to moderate primary open-angle glaucoma, Canada: Ahmed et al. (2025) Relevance: Evaluates the Hydrus microstent implanted with cataract surgery against cataract surgery alone in mild to moderate primary open-angle glaucoma from a Canadian health care payer perspective. Access: Full text not retrieved > “A semi-Markov model was developed to model effects and costs over a 15-year time horizon from the Canadian public health care payer perspective for patients with mild or moderate POAG receiving Hydrus Microstent during CS vs. CS alone.” > “The model utilizes the Hydrus Microstent for Lowering IOP in Glaucoma Patients Undergoing Cataract Surgery (HORIZON) trial patient cohort.” > “Compared with CS alone, Hydrus + CS was a dominant strategy (greater benefits and lower costs).” > “Although life years were equivalent between the 2 treatments (11.41 years), the Hydrus + CS arm was associated with higher benefits (9.351 vs. 9.040 in QALYs). This translated into an additional 0.311 QALYs for Hydrus + CS.” > “Total costs were lower with Hydrus + CS (Can$ 26 770 vs. Can$ 27 145) resulting in a saving of Can$ 375.” > “The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve shows a probability of 85.3% of Hydrus + CS being cost-effective compared with CS alone at a willingness-to-pay threshold of 50 000/QALY.” Source: [Ahmed et al. (2025)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39929472/) #### Trabecular bypass device with cataract surgery or as a standalone procedure versus usual care in open-angle glaucoma, Australia: Healey et al. (2022) Relevance: Evaluates trabecular bypass devices with cataract surgery against cataract surgery alone, and as a standalone procedure against usual care, in open-angle glaucoma from an Australian health care payer perspective. > “We performed a cost-utility analysis of TBD implantation in conjunction with cataract surgery or as a standalone procedure in patients with OAG. The model used a Monte Carlo simulation to follow individual patients through a glaucoma treatment algorithm that included TBD and compared the costs and outcomes with those of patients simulated through an algorithm without TBD (usual care).” > “All costs included in the model were denominated in Australian dollars (2017 values) and reflected the Australian health care payer perspective.” > “However, in order to avoid uncertain extrapolations over an extended period, the model was conservatively limited to a duration of 15 years.” > “In the cataract surgery population, TBD surgery was associated with incremental healthcare costs of A$177 and 0.0726 QALYs per patient, resulting in an incremental cost per QALY gained of A$2430.” > “In the standalone population, the overall incremental cost of TBD surgery versus usual care was A$2234. With QALYs gained of 0.1526 per patient, this equated to an incremental cost per QALY gained ratio of A$14,644.” Source: [Healey et al. (2022)](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9043058/) #### iStent inject with cataract surgery versus cataract surgery alone in mild-to-moderate open-angle glaucoma, France: Nieland et al. (2021) Relevance: Evaluates the iStent inject trabecular bypass stent with cataract surgery against cataract surgery alone in mild-to-moderate open-angle glaucoma over a lifetime horizon from a societal perspective in France. > “A previously published Markov model was adapted to estimate the cost-effectiveness of treatment with iStent inject TBS + Cat Sx versus Cat Sx alone over a lifetime time horizon in patients with mild-to-moderate open-angle glaucoma in France.” > “To investigate the cost-effectiveness of implementing iStent inject trabecular bypass stent (TBS) in conjunction with cataract surgery (Cat Sx) in patients with mild-to-moderate glaucoma from a societal perspective in France.” > “A discount rate of 4% was applied to future costs and effects as per French health-economic guidelines” > “Quality-adjusted life expectancy in patients treated with iStent inject TBS + Cat Sx amounted to 11,05 QALYs versus 10,98 QALYs for Cat Sx alone. The corresponding total costs per patient were €13,949 and €13,874 respectively.” > “Incremental cost and QALYs were €75 and 0.065 leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €1,154/QALY gained.” > “iStent inject TBS + Cat Sx had an 86% chance of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €30,000 per QALY gained.” Source: [Nieland et al. (2021)](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8191915/) #### Adherence versus nonadherence to glaucoma medication in newly diagnosed glaucoma, United States: Newman-Casey et al. (2020) Relevance: Compares adherence with nonadherence to glaucoma medication, the problem of daily topical therapy that section 2 states drug delivery systems were developed to address. > “Cost-utility analysis using Monte Carlo microsimulations incorporating a series of Markov cycles (10,000 iterations per strategy).” > “A cost-utility analysis was conducted that assessed the societal costs of optimal versus poor adherence to glaucoma medications among people 40 years of age and older with newly diagnosed glaucoma on a 60-year (full life) time horizon.” > “All participants entered the model with mild glaucoma and progressed to one of six different health states: mild glaucoma, moderate glaucoma, severe glaucoma, blindness in one eye, blindness in both eyes, and death.” > “Those with poor adherence were modeled as having outcomes similar to the placebo arm of the clinical trials.” > “Total healthcare costs for adherent patients averaged $62,782 (standard deviation, SD: 34,107) while those for non-adherent patients averaged $52,722 (SD: 38,868). Non-adherent patients had a mean loss of 0.34 QALYs, resulting in a cost-effectiveness ratio of $29,600 per QALY gained.” Source: [Newman-Casey et al. (2020)](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7145750/) #### Treatment thresholds by annual risk of primary open-angle glaucoma versus no treatment in ocular hypertension, United States: Kymes et al. (2006) Relevance: Evaluates treatment thresholds based on the annual risk of developing primary open-angle glaucoma, against treating no one, in people with ocular hypertension in the United States. > “DESIGN: Cost-utility analysis with the use of a Markov model.” > “We modeled a hypothetic cohort of people with IOP of > or =24 mm Hg.” > “Four treatment thresholds were considered: (1) Treat no one; (2) treat people with a > or =5% annual risk of the development of POAG; (3) treat people with a > or =2% annual risk of the development of POAG, and (4) treat everyone.” > “The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for treatment of people with ocular hypertension were 3670 US dollars per quality adjusted life-year (QALY) for the Treat > or =5% threshold and 42,430 US dollars/QALY for the Treat > or =2% threshold.” > “"Treat everyone" cost more and was less effective than other options.” > “Assuming a cost-effectiveness threshold of 50,000 to 100,000 US dollars/QALY, the Treat > or =2% threshold would result in the most net health benefit.” Source: [Kymes et al. (2006)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16765666/) #### Selective laser trabeculoplasty versus eye drops as first-line treatment in open angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension, United Kingdom: Gazzard et al. (2019) Relevance: Compares selective laser trabeculoplasty with eye drops as first-line treatment of ocular hypertension and open-angle glaucoma using LiGHT trial data in the United Kingdom. > “In this observer-masked, randomised controlled trial treatment-naive patients with open angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension and no ocular comorbidities were recruited between 2012 and 2014 at six UK hospitals.” > “For our economic assessment, we calculated quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) from utility scores over the 36-month period using the baseline and 6-monthly follow-up EQ-5D questionnaires and calculating the area under the curve.” > “Selective laser trabeculoplasty as first-line treatment resulted in more QALYs than eye drops first (table 4, but the difference was not significant p=0·286), for a lower cost and so no incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is reported.” > “Imputing missing EQ-5D-5L utilities using multiple imputation and accounting for the correlation between costs and QALYs, using seemingly unrelated regression, selective laser trabeculoplasty as first-line treatment costs £458 less than eye drops first with 95% of bootstrap iterations falling between −£585 and −£345 (for specialist eye-related costs) and has a mean incremental QALY of 0·011, with 95% bootstrap iterations falling between −0·024 and 0·050.” > “Over 36 months, discounted and adjusted, at a £20 000 and £30 000 willingness to pay for a QALY gained, there is a 97% and 93% probability that selective laser trabeculoplasty first is more cost-effective than eye drops first when only ophthalmology costs are included, and a 68% chance for both £20 000 and £30 000 when community and non-eye related costs are added (appendix).” Source: [Gazzard et al. (2019)](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6495367/) #### MicroShunt versus trabeculectomy in open-angle glaucoma, United States: Atik et al. (2022) Relevance: Compares the MicroShunt with trabeculectomy, an incisional glaucoma surgery listed in section 2, from a societal perspective in the United States Medicare system. > “PURPOSE: To assess the societal cost-utility of the MicroShunt compared with trabeculectomy for the surgical management of glaucoma in the US Medicare system.” > “Open-angle glaucoma treatment costs and effects were analyzed with a deterministic model over a 1-year horizon using TreeAge software.” > “Health states included the Hodapp-Parrish-Anderson glaucoma stages (mild, moderate, advanced, blind) and death.” > “At 1 year, the MicroShunt had an expected cost of US dollars (USD) 6318 compared with USD 4260 for trabeculectomy. MicroShunt patients gained 0.85 QALYs compared with 0.86 QALYs for trabeculectomy, resulting in a dominated incremental cost-utility ratio of USD 187 680.” > “At a willingness-to-pay threshold of USD 50 000, the likelihood of the MicroShunt being cost-effective was 6.4%. Dominance continued in longer time horizons, up to 20 years.” Source: [Atik et al. (2022)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35636620/) #### Baerveldt tube insertion and trabeculectomy with mitomycin versus medical treatment in glaucoma requiring surgery, United States: Kaplan et al. (2015) Relevance: Compares the Baerveldt tube implant, trabeculectomy with mitomycin, and medical treatment for glaucoma in the United States. > “We used the Markov cohort model with a 5-year time horizon to study a hypothetical cohort of 100 000 patients who required glaucoma surgery.” > “Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, costs from the societal perspective, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of medical treatment, trabeculectomy, and tube insertion.” > “Costs and utilities were discounted at 3% per year.” > “The mean costs for medical treatment, trabeculectomy, and tube insertion were $6172, $7872 and $10 075, respectively” > “The utility gained after medical treatment, trabeculectomy, and tube insertion was 3.10, 3.30, and 3.38 QALYs, respectively.” > “The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $8289 per QALY for trabeculectomy vs medical treatment, $13 896 per QALY for tube insertion vs medical treatment, and $29 055 per QALY for tube insertion vs trabeculectomy.” Source: [Kaplan et al. (2015)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25741886/) ### 1.3 The same disease in other populations or settings No evidence found. ### 1.4 Related diseases and analogous treatments #### First-eye and second-eye cataract surgery versus no surgery in cataract, United States: Brown et al. (2019) Relevance: Evaluates first-eye and second-eye cataract surgery in the United States, the procedure every participant in the Rhine and Rhone trials undergoes with either the BIM-IOL System or a monofocal intraocular lens. > “PURPOSE: To perform a cost-utility analysis of 2018 United States real dollars for cataract surgery.” > “A base-case 14-year cost-utility model using the ophthalmic cost perspective was used. Third-party insurer and societal cost perspectives were also analyzed. Patient outcomes and costs were discounted with net present value analysis at 3% a year.” > “First-eye cataract surgery resulted in a gain of 2.52 QALYs, while second-eye surgery added an incremental gain of 0.81 QALYs.” > “The ophthalmic-cost-perspective average cost-utility ratio was $2526/2.523 = $1001/QALY for first-eye cataract surgery.” > “The societal-cost-perspective average cost-utility ratio was -$370 018/2.523 = -$146 629/QALY.” > “The second-eye ophthalmic-cost-perspective cost-utility ratio was $2526/0.814 = $3101/QALY” Source: [Brown et al. (2019)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31262482/) ## 2 Utility weights ### 2.1 Utility weights from analyses of BIM-IOL System No evidence found. ### 2.2 Utility weights for the same indication #### Utility weights for mild, moderate, advanced, and severe glaucoma and incisional surgery, open-angle glaucoma: Sood et al. (2022) Relevance: Utilities for mild, moderate, advanced, and severe glaucoma and a utility for incisional surgery, used in a U.S. model of trabecular meshwork stents with cataract surgery. Access: Not open access Not quoted: The utility weights are reported in the full text, which is closed access. > “We estimated whole costs at Medicare rates and obtained utility values for glaucoma states from previous studies.” Source: [Sood et al. (2022)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34563713/) #### Utility weights for mild, moderate, and severe glaucoma, unilateral and bilateral blindness, and laser trabeculoplasty side effects, open-angle glaucoma: Stein et al. (2012) Relevance: Utilities for mild, moderate, and severe glaucoma, unilateral and bilateral blindness, and adverse effects of laser trabeculoplasty used in a U.S. model of newly diagnosed open-angle glaucoma. > “Lee and colleagues quantified the utility values associated with different severities of glaucoma. These investigators determined the utilities of OAG ranged from 0.92 for mild disease to 0.86 for severe damage.” > “Brown and colleagues reported the utility score from unilateral blindness is 0.47 and bilateral blindness is 0.26.” > “Finally, for the subset of beneficiaries who experienced side effects from the laser procedure, we assigned them a utility score of 0.75.” Source: [Stein et al. (2012)](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3324653/) | Health state | Utility | | --- | --- | | “Mild glaucoma” | “0.92” | | “Moderate glaucoma” | “0.89” | | “Severe glaucoma” | “0.86” | | “Unilateral blindness” | “0.47” | | “Bilateral Blindness” | “0.26” | Source: [Stein et al. (2012)](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3324653/) #### Utility weights for mild, moderate, and advanced glaucoma, blindness, medication side effects, and incisional surgery, open-angle glaucoma: Atik et al. (2022) Relevance: Utilities by glaucoma severity and blindness, with disutilities for incisional glaucoma surgery and for glaucoma medication side effects, used in a U.S. Medicare model. Access: Not open access Not quoted: The utility weights are reported in the full text, which is closed access. > “Health states included the Hodapp-Parrish-Anderson glaucoma stages (mild, moderate, advanced, blind) and death.” Source: [Atik et al. (2022)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35636620/) #### Utility weights for open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension stages 0 to 5 and severe ocular surface disease, open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension: Canut et al. (2025) Relevance: Utilities for open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension by disease stage and a disutility for severe ocular surface disease, from a Markov model of the progression of open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Access: Free full text > “A cost–utility analysis was performed using a Markov model simulating the progression of OAG/OHT.” > “The utility values used in the analysis for each health state were 0.970 (Stage 0), 0.895 (Stage 1), 0.800 (Stage 2), 0.722 (Stage 3), 0.621 (Stage 4), 0.520 (Stage 5), and 0.0 (Death) according to the literature” > “The OSD-related disutility values applied to the analysis corresponding to severe OSD was 0.120 according to the estimations of the Canada’s Drugs and Health Technology Agency (CADTH)” Source: [Canut et al. (2025)](https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2025.2556693) #### Utility weights for treatment with bimatoprost, latanoprost, travoprost, tafluprost, and timolol and for untreated open-angle glaucoma by visual acuity, open-angle glaucoma: Brown and Brown (2019) Relevance: Time tradeoff utilities for treatment with bimatoprost, other prostaglandin analogs, and timolol, and for untreated open-angle glaucoma by visual acuity, used in a U.S. model. Access: Not open access Not quoted: The utility weights are reported in the full text, which is closed access. > “Visual acuity and visual field changes were converted to time tradeoff utility format.” Source: [Brown and Brown (2019)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30920338/) #### Utility weights for mild, moderate, and severe glaucoma, blindness, ocular surface disease, and falls, primary open-angle glaucoma: Ahmed et al. (2025) Relevance: Utilities by glaucoma severity, blindness, and ocular surface disease, and a disutility for falls, used in a Canadian model of a microstent implanted with cataract surgery. Access: Full text not retrieved Not quoted: The utility weights are reported in the full text, which this page does not quote. > “Utility values were sourced from a published analysis that conducted a mapping exercise based on Health Utilities Index mark 3 using Canadian tariffs.” Source: [Ahmed et al. (2025)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39929472/) #### Utility weights for ocular hypertension, mild, moderate, and severe glaucoma, and visual impairment, ocular hypertension: Hernández et al. (2016) Relevance: Utilities for ocular hypertension, mild, moderate, and severe glaucoma, and visual impairment from open-angle glaucoma, used in a discrete event simulation of alternative care pathways for ocular hypertension from a UK health services perspective. Access: Not open access Not quoted: The utility weights are reported in the full text, which this page does not quote. > “Discrete event simulation model comparing five alternative care pathways” > “UK health services perspective.” > “Costs, glaucoma detected, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).” Source: [Hernández et al. (2016)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26659710/) #### Utility weights for cataract surgery and bilateral blindness, ocular hypertension: Kymes et al. (2006) Relevance: Disutilities for cataract surgery and bilateral blindness used in a U.S. model of ocular hypertension treatment. Access: Not open access Not quoted: The utility weights are reported in the full text, which is closed access. > “The decision was sensitive to the incidence of POAG without treatment, treatment effectiveness, and the utility loss because of POAG.” Source: [Kymes et al. (2006)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16765666/) ### 2.3 Utility weights for the same disease in other populations or settings No evidence found. ### 2.4 Utility weights for related diseases and analogous treatments No evidence found. ## 3 Search strategy | Dataset | Query | Results | | --- | --- | --- | | Ratios | "sustained release" OR "sustained-release" OR "intravitreal implant" OR "drug delivery" | 56 | | Methods | "BIM-IOL" OR SpyGlass OR "bimatoprost implant" | 0 | | Ratios | glaucoma OR "ocular hypertension" | 128 | | Ratios | timolol OR latanoprost OR bimatoprost OR travoprost OR prostaglandin | 44 | | Ratios | "trabeculoplasty" | 12 | | Ratios | "cataract surgery" OR phacoemulsification | 217 | | Ratios | iStent OR Hydrus OR "trabecular bypass" OR "minimally invasive glaucoma" | 16 | | Ratios | Durysta OR iDose OR intracameral OR "drug-eluting" | 136 | | Weights | glaucoma OR "ocular hypertension" | 227 | ## Related pages - [BIM-IOL System: Open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/bim-iol-system--open-angle-glaucoma-or-ocular-hypertension) · [Markdown](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/bim-iol-system--open-angle-glaucoma-or-ocular-hypertension.md) - [BIM-IOL System in Open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension: Terms and abbreviations](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/bim-iol-system--open-angle-glaucoma-or-ocular-hypertension/terms-and-abbreviations) · [Markdown](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/bim-iol-system--open-angle-glaucoma-or-ocular-hypertension/terms-and-abbreviations.md) - [BIM-IOL System: Open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/bim-iol-system--open-angle-glaucoma-or-ocular-hypertension/executive-summary) · [Markdown](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/bim-iol-system--open-angle-glaucoma-or-ocular-hypertension/executive-summary.md) - [BIM-IOL System in Open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension: Product information and disease description](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/bim-iol-system--open-angle-glaucoma-or-ocular-hypertension/product-information-and-disease-description) · [Markdown](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/bim-iol-system--open-angle-glaucoma-or-ocular-hypertension/product-information-and-disease-description.md) - [BIM-IOL System in Open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension: Clinical evidence](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/bim-iol-system--open-angle-glaucoma-or-ocular-hypertension/clinical-evidence) · [Markdown](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/bim-iol-system--open-angle-glaucoma-or-ocular-hypertension/clinical-evidence.md) - [BIM-IOL System in Open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension: Economic information and modeling report](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/bim-iol-system--open-angle-glaucoma-or-ocular-hypertension/economics) · [Markdown](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/bim-iol-system--open-angle-glaucoma-or-ocular-hypertension/economics.md) - [BIM-IOL System in Open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension: References](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/bim-iol-system--open-angle-glaucoma-or-ocular-hypertension/references) · [Markdown](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/bim-iol-system--open-angle-glaucoma-or-ocular-hypertension/references.md) - [BIM-IOL System in Open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension: prevalence by geography](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/bim-iol-system--open-angle-glaucoma-or-ocular-hypertension/prevalence) · [Markdown](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/bim-iol-system--open-angle-glaucoma-or-ocular-hypertension/prevalence.md)