Economic evaluation of screening for open angle glaucoma

Rodolfo Andres Hernandez, Jennifer Margaret Burr, Luke David Vale, OAG Screening Project Group

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

21 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of screening for open-angle glaucoma (OAG) in the United Kingdom, given that OAG is an important cause of blindness worldwide.

Methods: A Markov model was developed to estimate lifetime costs and benefits of a cohort of patients facing, alternatively, screening or current opportunistic case finding strategies. Strategies, varying in how screening would be organized (e.g., invitation for assessment by a glaucoma-trained optometrist [GO] or for simple test assessment by a technician) were developed, and allowed for the progression of OAG and treatment effects. Data inputs were obtained from systematic reviews. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results: Screening was more likely to be cost-effective as prevalence increased, for 40 year olds compared with 60 or 75 year olds, when the re-screening interval was greater (10 years), and for the technician strategy compared with the GO strategy. For each age cohort and at prevalence levels of <= 1 percent, the likelihood that either screening strategy would be more cost-effective than current practice was small. For those 40 years of age, "technician screening" compared with current practice has an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) that society might be willing to pay when prevalence is 6 percent to 10 percent and at over 10 percent for 60 year olds. In the United Kingdom, the age specific prevalence of OAG is much lower. Screening by GO, at any age or prevalence level, was not associated with an ICER < 30,000 pound.

Conclusions: Population screening for OAG is unlikely to be cost-effective but could be for specific subgroups at higher risk.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)203-211
Number of pages9
JournalInternational Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
Volume24
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Apr 2008

Keywords

  • economic evaluation
  • glaucoma
  • screening
  • cost-effectiveness analysis
  • cost-utility analysis
  • Baltimore eye survey
  • cost-effectiveness
  • population
  • utility
  • pressure

Cite this

Economic evaluation of screening for open angle glaucoma. / Hernandez, Rodolfo Andres; Burr, Jennifer Margaret; Vale, Luke David; OAG Screening Project Group.

In: International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, Vol. 24, No. 2, 04.2008, p. 203-211.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Hernandez, Rodolfo Andres ; Burr, Jennifer Margaret ; Vale, Luke David ; OAG Screening Project Group. / Economic evaluation of screening for open angle glaucoma. In: International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care. 2008 ; Vol. 24, No. 2. pp. 203-211.
@article{f7539da7669d4665ab171ad2faf07ae5,
title = "Economic evaluation of screening for open angle glaucoma",
abstract = "Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of screening for open-angle glaucoma (OAG) in the United Kingdom, given that OAG is an important cause of blindness worldwide.Methods: A Markov model was developed to estimate lifetime costs and benefits of a cohort of patients facing, alternatively, screening or current opportunistic case finding strategies. Strategies, varying in how screening would be organized (e.g., invitation for assessment by a glaucoma-trained optometrist [GO] or for simple test assessment by a technician) were developed, and allowed for the progression of OAG and treatment effects. Data inputs were obtained from systematic reviews. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.Results: Screening was more likely to be cost-effective as prevalence increased, for 40 year olds compared with 60 or 75 year olds, when the re-screening interval was greater (10 years), and for the technician strategy compared with the GO strategy. For each age cohort and at prevalence levels of <= 1 percent, the likelihood that either screening strategy would be more cost-effective than current practice was small. For those 40 years of age, {"}technician screening{"} compared with current practice has an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) that society might be willing to pay when prevalence is 6 percent to 10 percent and at over 10 percent for 60 year olds. In the United Kingdom, the age specific prevalence of OAG is much lower. Screening by GO, at any age or prevalence level, was not associated with an ICER < 30,000 pound.Conclusions: Population screening for OAG is unlikely to be cost-effective but could be for specific subgroups at higher risk.",
keywords = "economic evaluation, glaucoma, screening, cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-utility analysis, Baltimore eye survey, cost-effectiveness, population, utility , pressure",
author = "Hernandez, {Rodolfo Andres} and Burr, {Jennifer Margaret} and Vale, {Luke David} and {OAG Screening Project Group}",
year = "2008",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1017/S0266462308080288",
language = "English",
volume = "24",
pages = "203--211",
journal = "International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care",
issn = "0266-4623",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Economic evaluation of screening for open angle glaucoma

AU - Hernandez, Rodolfo Andres

AU - Burr, Jennifer Margaret

AU - Vale, Luke David

AU - OAG Screening Project Group

PY - 2008/4

Y1 - 2008/4

N2 - Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of screening for open-angle glaucoma (OAG) in the United Kingdom, given that OAG is an important cause of blindness worldwide.Methods: A Markov model was developed to estimate lifetime costs and benefits of a cohort of patients facing, alternatively, screening or current opportunistic case finding strategies. Strategies, varying in how screening would be organized (e.g., invitation for assessment by a glaucoma-trained optometrist [GO] or for simple test assessment by a technician) were developed, and allowed for the progression of OAG and treatment effects. Data inputs were obtained from systematic reviews. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.Results: Screening was more likely to be cost-effective as prevalence increased, for 40 year olds compared with 60 or 75 year olds, when the re-screening interval was greater (10 years), and for the technician strategy compared with the GO strategy. For each age cohort and at prevalence levels of <= 1 percent, the likelihood that either screening strategy would be more cost-effective than current practice was small. For those 40 years of age, "technician screening" compared with current practice has an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) that society might be willing to pay when prevalence is 6 percent to 10 percent and at over 10 percent for 60 year olds. In the United Kingdom, the age specific prevalence of OAG is much lower. Screening by GO, at any age or prevalence level, was not associated with an ICER < 30,000 pound.Conclusions: Population screening for OAG is unlikely to be cost-effective but could be for specific subgroups at higher risk.

AB - Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of screening for open-angle glaucoma (OAG) in the United Kingdom, given that OAG is an important cause of blindness worldwide.Methods: A Markov model was developed to estimate lifetime costs and benefits of a cohort of patients facing, alternatively, screening or current opportunistic case finding strategies. Strategies, varying in how screening would be organized (e.g., invitation for assessment by a glaucoma-trained optometrist [GO] or for simple test assessment by a technician) were developed, and allowed for the progression of OAG and treatment effects. Data inputs were obtained from systematic reviews. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.Results: Screening was more likely to be cost-effective as prevalence increased, for 40 year olds compared with 60 or 75 year olds, when the re-screening interval was greater (10 years), and for the technician strategy compared with the GO strategy. For each age cohort and at prevalence levels of <= 1 percent, the likelihood that either screening strategy would be more cost-effective than current practice was small. For those 40 years of age, "technician screening" compared with current practice has an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) that society might be willing to pay when prevalence is 6 percent to 10 percent and at over 10 percent for 60 year olds. In the United Kingdom, the age specific prevalence of OAG is much lower. Screening by GO, at any age or prevalence level, was not associated with an ICER < 30,000 pound.Conclusions: Population screening for OAG is unlikely to be cost-effective but could be for specific subgroups at higher risk.

KW - economic evaluation

KW - glaucoma

KW - screening

KW - cost-effectiveness analysis

KW - cost-utility analysis

KW - Baltimore eye survey

KW - cost-effectiveness

KW - population

KW - utility

KW - pressure

U2 - 10.1017/S0266462308080288

DO - 10.1017/S0266462308080288

M3 - Article

VL - 24

SP - 203

EP - 211

JO - International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

JF - International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

SN - 0266-4623

IS - 2

ER -