Back to Search Start Over

Cost-effectiveness of monitoring ocular hypertension based on a risk prediction tool.

Authors :
Wu H
Gazzard G
King A
Morgan J
Wright D
Crabb DP
Takwoingi Y
Azuara-Blanco A
Watson V
Hernández R
Source :
BMJ open ophthalmology [BMJ Open Ophthalmol] 2024 Aug 28; Vol. 9 (1). Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Aug 28.
Publication Year :
2024

Abstract

Background/aims: To assess the cost-effectiveness of making treatment decisions for patients with ocular hypertension (OHT) based on a risk prediction (RP) tool in the United Kingdom.<br />Methods: A discrete event simulation model was constructed to compare the cost-effectiveness of an alternative care pathway in which the treatment decision was guided by a validated RP tool in secondary care against decision-making based on the standard care (SC). Individual patient sampling was used. Patients diagnosed with OHT and with an intraocular pressure of 24 mm Hg or over entered the model with a set of predefined individual characteristics related to their risk of conversion to glaucoma. These characteristics were retrieved from electronic medical records (n=5740). Different stages of glaucoma were modelled following conversion to glaucoma.<br />Results: Almost all (99%) patients were treated using the RP strategy, and less than half (47%) of the patients were treated using the SC strategy. The RP strategy produced higher cost but also higher quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) than the SC strategy. The RP strategy was cost-effective compared with the SC strategy in the base-case analysis, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio value of £11 522. The RP strategy had a 96% probability of being cost-effective under a £20 000 per QALY threshold.<br />Conclusions: The use of an RP tool for the management of patients with OHT is likely to be cost-effective. However, the generalisability of the result might be limited due to the high-risk nature of this cohort and the specific RP threshold used in the study.<br />Competing Interests: Competing interests: GG – Consulting: Alcon, Allergan, Belkin, Elios, Equinox, Genentech/Roche, Glaukos, Ivantis, McKinsey, Rayner, Reichert, Ripple Therapeutics, Santen, Sight Sciences, Thea, Vialase, Visufarma, Zeiss; Grants: Thea, Santen; Honoraria: Alcon, Allergan, Belkin, Glaukos, Ivantis, Lumibird, McKinsey, Reichert, Sight Sciences, Thea; Travel: Ivantis, Thea; Board membership: Glaucoma UK, UK & Ireland Glaucoma Society. AK – Advisory Board: Thea & Abbvie. DC - Consulting: Apellis; Financial Support: Apellis, Santen; Recipient: Allergan/Abbvie, Janssen, Santen, Thea. YT – Grants: National Institute of Health Research. VW: Chief Scientist Office, Scotland; National Institute for Health Research; Economic and Social Research Council; Economic and Social Research Council and Global Challenges Research Fund; Imperial College London; The Urology Foundation. RH – Grants: National Institute of Health Research.<br /> (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
2397-3269
Volume :
9
Issue :
1
Database :
MEDLINE
Journal :
BMJ open ophthalmology
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
39209325
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjophth-2024-001741