Health Economic Analysis in Glaucoma.
Journal
Journal of glaucoma
ISSN: 1536-481X
Titre abrégé: J Glaucoma
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9300903
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 2020
04 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
14
2
2020
medline:
12
9
2020
entrez:
14
2
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The pressure on glaucoma services is ever-growing, and policymakers seek robust cost-effectiveness arguments in their decisions around resource allocation. The benefits of glaucoma are in preventing or delaying a future loss of vision and associated quality of life, and this expectation is quantified using a metric called utility which can be compared against other disease states. In recent clinical trials lasting up to 3 years, it has been difficult to show a difference in utility between glaucoma treatments in this limited period of time. When it comes to cost, the direct medical costs are only part of the broad range of costs that glaucoma brings to patients and communities, and the estimation of these costs can be difficult and imprecise. While the cost-effectiveness of glaucoma care, in general, is not in dispute, especially over longer time frames, the inability to measure changes in utility in shorter time frames impedes the uptake of innovations around the world. A number of approaches to improve the sensitivity and specificity of utility measurements are under investigation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32053550
doi: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000001462
pii: 00061198-202004000-00011
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
304-311Références
Quigley HA, Broman AT. The number of people with glaucoma worldwide in 2010 and 2020. Br J Ophthalmol. 2006;90:262–267.
Dirani M, Crowston JG, Taylor PS, et al. Economic impact of primary open-angle glaucoma in Australia. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2011;39:623–632.
Bakker C, van der Linden S. Health related utility measurement: an introduction. J Rheumatol. 1995;22:1197–1199.
Mittman N, Chan D, Trakas K, et al. Health utility attributes for chronic conditions. Dis Manag Health Out. 2001;9:11–21.
Rossetti L, Goni F, Denis P, et al. Focusing on glaucoma progression and the clinical importance of progression rate measurement: a review. Eye (Lond). 2010;24 (suppl 1):S1–S7.
Heijl A, Buchholz P, Norrgren G, et al. Rates of visual field progression in clinical glaucoma care. Acta Ophthalmol. 2013;91:406–412.
Saunders LJ, Medeiros FA, Weinreb RN, et al. What rates of glaucoma progression are clinically significant? Expert Rev Ophthalmol. 2016;11:227–234.
Chauhan BC, Garway-Heath DF, Goni FJ, et al. Practical recommendations for measuring rates of visual field change in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 2008;92:569–573.
Caprioli J, Mohamed L, Morales E, et al. A method to measure the rate of glaucomatous visual field change. Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2018;7:14.
Peters D, Bengtsson B, Heijl A. Lifetime risk of blindness in open-angle glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 2013;156:724–730.
Mokhles P, Schouten JS, Beckers HJ, et al. Glaucoma blindness at the end of life. Acta Ophthalmol. 2017;95:10–11.
Landers J, Martin K, Sarkies N, et al. A twenty-year follow-up study of trabeculectomy: risk factors and outcomes. Ophthalmology. 2012;119:694–702.
Heijl A, Aspberg J, Bengtsson B. The effect of different criteria on the number of patients blind from open-angle glaucoma. BMC Ophthalmol. 2011;11:31.
Richman J, Lorenzana LL, Lankaranian D, et al. Relationships in glaucoma patients between standard vision tests, quality of life, and ability to perform daily activities. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2010;17:144–151.
Wood JM, Black AA, Mallon K, et al. Glaucoma and driving: on-road driving characteristics. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0158318.
Montana CL, Bhorade AM. Glaucoma and quality of life: fall and driving risk. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2018;29:135–140.
Lee SS, Black AA, Wood JM. Scanning behavior and daytime driving performance of older adults with glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2018;27:558–565.
Dukic Willstrand T, Broberg T, Selander H. Driving characteristics of older drivers and their relationship to the useful field of view test. Gerontology. 2017;63:180–188.
Blane A. Through the looking glass: a review of the literature investigating the impact of glaucoma on crash risk, driving performance, and driver self-regulation in older drivers. J Glaucoma. 2016;25:113–121.
Kotecha A, Richardson G, Chopra R, et al. Balance control in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012;53:7795–7801.
Ramulu P. Glaucoma and disability: which tasks are affected, and at what stage of disease? Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2009;20:92–98.
Mihailovic A, Swenor BK, Friedman DS, et al. Gait implications of visual field damage from glaucoma. Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2017;6:23.
Kotecha A, Chopra R, Fahy RT, et al. Dual tasking and balance in those with central and peripheral vision loss. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013;54:5408–5415.
Gomes HA, Moreira BS, Sampaio RF, et al. Gait parameters, functional mobility and fall risk in individuals with early to moderate primary open angle glaucoma: a cross-sectional study. Braz J Phys Ther. 2018;22:376–382.
Ramulu PY, van Landingham SW, Massof RW, et al. Fear of falling and visual field loss from glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 2012;119:1352–1358.
Ramulu PY, Mihailovic A, West SK, et al. Predictors of falls per step and falls per year at and away from home in glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 2019;200:169–178.
Ramulu PY, Mihailovic A, West SK, et al. What is a falls risk factor? Factors associated with falls per time or per step in individuals with glaucoma. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2019;67:87–92.
Zhang X, Olson DJ, Le P, et al. The association between glaucoma, anxiety, and depression in a large population. Am J Ophthalmol. 2017;183:37–41.
Lim NC, Fan CH, Yong MK, et al. Assessment of depression, anxiety, and quality of life in singaporean patients with glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2016;25:605–612.
Wang Y, Alnwisi S, Ke M. The impact of mild, moderate, and severe visual field loss in glaucoma on patients’ quality of life measured via the glaucoma quality of life-15 questionnaire: a meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96:e8019.
McKean-Cowdin R, Varma R, Wu J, et al. Severity of visual field loss and health-related quality of life. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007;143:1013–1023.
Goldberg I, Clement CI, Chiang TH, et al. Assessing quality of life in patients with glaucoma using the glaucoma quality of life-15 (GQL-15) questionnaire. J Glaucoma. 2009;18:6–12.
Janz NK, Wren PA, Guire KE, et al. Fear of blindness in the collaborative initial glaucoma treatment study: patterns and correlates over time. Ophthalmology. 2007;114:2213–2220.
Vandenbroeck S, De Geest S, Zeyen T, et al. Patient-reported outcomes (pro’s) in glaucoma: a systematic review. Eye (Lond). 2011;25:555–577.
Khadka J, Pesudovs K, McAlinden C, et al. Reengineering the glaucoma quality of life-15 questionnaire with rasch analysis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52:6971–6977.
Dean S, Mathers JM, Calvert M, et al. “The patient is speaking”: discovering the patient voice in ophthalmology. Br J Ophthalmol. 2017;101:700–708.
Denniston AK, Kyte D, Calvert M, et al. An introduction to patient-reported outcome measures in ophthalmic research. Eye (Lond). 2014;28:637–645.
Nassiri N, Mehravaran S, Nouri-Mahdavi K, et al. National Eye Institute visual function questionnaire: usefulness in glaucoma. Optom Vis Sci. 2013;90:745–753.
Skalicky SE, Lamoureux EL, Crabb DP, et al. Patient-reported outcomes, functional assessment, and utility values in glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2019;28:89–96.
Paletta Guedes RA, Paletta Guedes VM, Freitas SM, et al. Utility values for glaucoma in brazil and their correlation with visual function. Clin Ophthalmol. 2014;8:529–535.
Gupta V, Srinivasan G, Mei SS, et al. Utility values among glaucoma patients: an impact on the quality of life. Br J Ophthalmol. 2005;89:1241–1244.
Sun X, Zhang S, Wang N, et al. Utility assessment among patients of primary angle closure/glaucoma in China: a preliminary study. Br J Ophthalmol. 2009;93:871–874.
Saw SM, Gazzard G, Au Eong KG, et al. Utility values in Singapore chinese adults with primary open-angle and primary angle-closure glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2005;14:455–462.
Bozzani FM, Alavi Y, Jofre-Bonet M, et al. A comparison of the sensitivity of EQ-5D, SF-6D and TTO utility values to changes in vision and perceived visual function in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma. BMC Ophthalmol. 2012;12:43.
Peters D, Heijl A, Brenner L, et al. Visual impairment and vision-related quality of life in the early manifest glaucoma trial after 20 years of follow-up. Acta Ophthalmol. 2015;93:745–752.
Brown MM, Brown GC, Sharma S, et al. Utility values associated with blindness in an adult population. Br J Ophthalmol. 2001;85:327–331.
Magacho L, Lima FE, Nery AC, et al. Quality of life in glaucoma patients: regression analysis and correlation with possible modifiers. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2004;11:263–270.
Finger RP, Kortuem K, Fenwick E, et al. Evaluation of a vision-related utility instrument: the German vision and quality of life index. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013;54:1289–1294.
Goh RL, Fenwick E, Skalicky SE. The visual function questionnaire: utility index: does it measure glaucoma-related preference-based status? J Glaucoma. 2016;25:822–829.
Kobelt G, Jonsson B, Bergstrom A, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis in glaucoma: what drives utility? Results from a pilot study in sweden. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2006;84:363–371.
Burr JM, Kilonzo M, Vale L, et al. Developing a preference-based glaucoma utility index using a discrete choice experiment. Optom Vis Sci. 2007;84:797–808.
Aspinall PA, Johnson ZK, Azuara-Blanco A, et al. Evaluation of quality of life and priorities of patients with glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008;49:1907–1915.
Bhargava JS, Patel B, Foss AJ, et al. Views of glaucoma patients on aspects of their treatment: an assessment of patient preference by conjoint analysis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006;47:2885–2888.
Misajon R, Hawthorne G, Richardson J, et al. Vision and quality of life: the development of a utility measure. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46:4007–4015.
Hanmer J, Feeny D, Fischhoff B, et al. The promis of QALYs. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;13:122.
Gazzard G, Konstantakopoulou E, Garway-Heath D, et al. Selective laser trabeculoplasty versus eye drops for first-line treatment of ocular hypertension and glaucoma (light): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2019;393:1505–1516.
Jones L, Garway-Heath DF, Azuara-Blanco A, et al. Are patient self-reported outcome measures sensitive enough to be used as end points in clinical trials?: evidence from the United Kingdom glaucoma treatment study. Ophthalmology. 2019;126:682–689.
Kowalski JW, Rentz AM, Walt JG, et al. Rasch analysis in the development of a simplified version of the national eye institute visual-function questionnaire-25 for utility estimation. Qual Life Res. 2012;21:323–334.
Lee PP, Walt JG, Doyle JJ, et al. A multicenter, retrospective pilot study of resource use and costs associated with severity of disease in glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 2006;124:12–19.
van Gestel A, Webers CA, Beckers HJ, et al. The relationship between visual field loss in glaucoma and health-related quality-of-life. Eye (Lond). 2010;24:1759–1769.
Quigley HA, Cassard SD, Gower EW, et al. The cost of glaucoma care provided to medicare beneficiaries from 2002 to 2009. Ophthalmology. 2013;120:2249–2257.
Koberlein J, Beifus K, Schaffert C, et al. The economic burden of visual impairment and blindness: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2013;3:e003471.
Varma R, Lee PP, Goldberg I, et al. An assessment of the health and economic burdens of glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 2011;152:515–522.
Guedes RA, Guedes VM, Gomes CE, et al. Maximizing cost-effectiveness by adjusting treatment strategy according to glaucoma severity. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;95:e5745.
Hagman J. Comparison of resource utilization in the treatment of open-angle glaucoma between two cities in Finland: is more better? Acta Ophthalmol. 2013;91(Thesis 3):1–47.
Olsen J, Berdeaux G, Skov J. Glaucoma costs in Denmark in treatment naive patients. Acta Ophthalmol. 2013;91:25–31.
Prior M, Francis JJ, Azuara-Blanco A, et al. Why do people present late with advanced glaucoma? A qualitative interview study. Br J Ophthalmol. 2013;97:1574–1578.
Boodhna T, Crabb DP. More frequent, more costly? Health economic modelling aspects of monitoring glaucoma patients in England. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16:611.
Ngan K, Fraser E, Buller S, et al. A cost minimisation analysis comparing istent accompanying cataract surgery and selective laser trabeculoplasty versus topical glaucoma medications in a public healthcare setting in New Zealand. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2018;256:2181–2189.
Sharma A, Jofre-Bonet M, Panca M, et al. Hospital-based glaucoma clinics: what are the costs to patients? Eye (Lond). 2010;24:999–1005.
Brault MW. Americans with Disabilities: 2010. Washington, DC: US Census Bureau; 2012.
Thygesen J, Aagren M, Arnavielle S, et al. Late-stage, primary open-angle glaucoma in Europe: social and health care maintenance costs and quality of life of patients from 4 countries. Curr Med Res Opin. 2008;24:1763–1770.
Kymes SM. An introduction to decision analysis in the economic evaluation of the prevention and treatment of vision-related diseases. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2008;15:76–83.
Paulden M. Recent amendments to nice’s value-based assessment of health technologies: implicitly inequitable? Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2017;17:239–242.
Brown GC, Brown MM, Stein JD, et al. Costs and financial gain associated with glaucoma therapy. Glaucoma Today. 2014:14–22.
Choi S, Choi JA, Kwon JW, et al. Utility values for glaucoma patients in Korea. PLoS One. 2018;13:e0197581.
Lee BS, Kymes SM, Nease RF Jr, et al. The impact of anchor point on utilities for 5 common ophthalmic diseases. Ophthalmology. 2008;115:898.e4–903.e4.
Sato RC, Zouain DM. Markov models in health care. Einstein (Sao Paulo). 2010;8:376–379.
Stein JD, Kim DD, Peck WW, et al. Cost-effectiveness of medications compared with laser trabeculoplasty in patients with newly diagnosed open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 2012;130:497–505.
Choi JA, Song LD, Choi S, et al. The cost-effectiveness of medication, laser trabeculoplasty, and trabeculectomy for treatment of open-angle glaucoma in South Korea. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019;98:e14026.
Gray SF, Spry PG, Brookes ST, et al. The Bristol shared care glaucoma study: outcome at follow up at 2 years. Br J Ophthalmol. 2000;84:456–463.
Crane GJ, Kymes SM, Hiller JE, et al. Accounting for costs, QALYs, and capacity constraints: using discrete-event simulation to evaluate alternative service delivery and organizational scenarios for hospital-based glaucoma services. Med Decis Making. 2013;33:986–997.
Tuulonen A, Kataja M, Syvanen U, et al. Right services to right patients at right time in right setting in tays eye centre. Acta Ophthalmol. 2016;94:730–735.
Holtzer-Goor KM, van Sprundel E, Lemij HG, et al. Cost-effectiveness of monitoring glaucoma patients in shared care: an economic evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial. BMC Health Serv Res. 2010;10:312.
Somner JE, Sii F, Bourne RR, et al. Moving from proms to poems for glaucoma care: a qualitative scoping exercise. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012;53:5940–5947.
Lu TC, Angell B, Dunn H, et al. Determining patient preferences in a glaucoma service: a discrete choice experiment. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2019;47:1146–1155.
Heijl A, Leske MC, Bengtsson B, et al. Reduction of intraocular pressure and glaucoma progression: results from the early manifest glaucoma trial. Arch Ophthalmol. 2002;120:1268–1279.
Tuulonen A. Treatment of ocular hypertension: is it cost effective? Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2016;27:89–93.
Li EY, Tham CC, Chi SC, et al. Cost-effectiveness of treating normal tension glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013;54:3394–3399.
Garway-Heath DF, Crabb DP, Bunce C, et al. Latanoprost for open-angle glaucoma (UKGTS): a randomised, multicentre, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2015;385:1295–1304.
Glaucoma Laser Trial Research Group. The glaucoma laser trial (GLT) and glaucoma laser trial follow-up study: 7. Results. Am J Ophthalmol. 1995;120:718–731.
Gazzard G, Konstantakopoulou E, Garway-Heath D, et al. Selective laser trabeculoplasty versus drops for newly diagnosed ocular hypertension and glaucoma: the light RCT. Health Technol Assess. 2019;23:1–102.
Ang GS, Fenwick EK, Constantinou M, et al. Selective laser trabeculoplasty versus topical medication as initial glaucoma treatment: the glaucoma initial treatment study randomised clinical trial. Br J Ophthalmol. 2019. [Epub ahead of print].
Azuara-Blanco A, Burr J, Ramsay C, et al. Effectiveness of early lens extraction for the treatment of primary angle-closure glaucoma (EAGLE): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016;388:1389–1397.
Cui QN, Singh K, Spaeth GL. From the patient’s point of view, how should minimally invasive glaucoma surgeries be evaluated? Am J Ophthalmol. 2016;172:xii–xiv.
Dempster M, McCorry NK, Donnelly M, et al. Individualisation of glaucoma quality of life measures: a way forward? Br J Ophthalmol. 2019;103:293–295.
McIntosh E, Luengo-Fernandez R. Economic evaluation. Part 1: introduction to the concepts of economic evaluation in health care. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2006;32:107–112.
Donaldson C, Atkinson A, Bond J, et al. QALYs and long-term care for elderly people in the UK: scales for assessment of quality of life. Age Ageing. 1988;17:379–387.
Donaldson C, Atkinson A, Bond J, et al. Should QALYs be programme-specific? J Health Econ. 1988;7:239–257.
Khadka J, Fenwick E, Lamoureux E, et al. Methods to develop the eye-tem bank to measure ophthalmic quality of life. Optom Vis Sci. 2016;93:1485–1494.