Cost-Utility Analysis of a Medication Adherence-Enhancing Educational Intervention for Glaucoma

被引:1
|
作者
Hung, Anna [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Williams, Andrew M. [4 ,5 ]
Newman-Casey, Paula Anne [6 ]
Muir, Kelly W. [1 ,4 ]
Gatwood, Justin [7 ]
机构
[1] Durham Vet Affairs Hlth Care Syst, Durham Ctr Innovat Accelerate Discovery & Practic, Durham, NC USA
[2] Duke Univ, Sch Med, Dept Populat Hlth Sci, Durham, NC 27701 USA
[3] Duke Margolis Ctr Hlth Policy, Durham, NC USA
[4] Duke Univ, Sch Med, Dept Ophthalmol, Durham, NC USA
[5] Univ Pittsburgh, Sch Med, Dept Ophthalmol, Pittsburgh, PA USA
[6] Univ Michigan, Kellogg Eye Ctr, Ann Arbor, MI USA
[7] Univ Tennessee, Hlth Sci Ctr, Coll Pharm, Memphis, TN USA
来源
OPHTHALMOLOGY GLAUCOMA | 2023年 / 6卷 / 04期
关键词
Cost-effectiveness; Glaucoma; Medication adherence; VISUAL-FIELD PROGRESSION; INTRAOCULAR-PRESSURE FLUCTUATION; OPEN-ANGLE GLAUCOMA; OCULAR HYPERTENSION; HEALTH; COMMUNICATION; LATANOPROST; BLINDNESS; BARRIERS; PEOPLE;
D O I
10.1016/j.ogla.2023.01.006
中图分类号
R77 [眼科学];
学科分类号
100212 ;
摘要
Objective: To evaluate the cost utility of a glaucoma medication-enhancing intervention compared to standard of care over a lifetime from the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) payer perspective. Design: Model-based cost-utility analysis of a glaucoma medication-enhancing intervention from a ran-domized clinical trial. Subjects: Veterans with glaucoma, or suspected glaucoma who were prescribed topical glaucoma medi-cations, had their visual field assessed within the last 9 months, and endorsed poor glaucoma medication adherence. Methods: Veterans were randomized either to a behavioral intervention to promote adherence or to a standard of care (control) session about general eye health. A decision analytic model was developed to simulate lifelong costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for an intervention tested in a randomized clinical trial at a single VA eye clinic. Costs included direct medical costs that the VA payer would incur, as informed initially by the clinical trial and then by published estimates. Health-state quality of life was based on published utility values. Scenario analyses included addition of booster interventions, a 3% decline in chance of staying medication adherent annually, and the combination of the two. Analyses were also conducted in the following subgroups: those with companion versus not, and those with once-daily versus more than once-daily dosing frequency. Main Outcome Measures: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Results: Compared to standard of care, the intervention dominated resulting in lower costs ($23 339.28 versus $23 504.02) and higher QALYs (11.62 versus 11.58). Among the 4 subgroups, the intervention dominated for 3 of them. In the fourth subgroup, those with more than once-daily dosing, the ICER was $2625/QALY. Compared to standard of care, an intervention with booster interventions led to an ICER of $3278/QALY. Assuming both a 3% annual loss in chance of continuing to be adherent and addition of booster interventions, the ICER increased to $71 371/QALY. Conclusions: From a VA payer perspective over a lifetime, the glaucoma medication-enhancing behavioral intervention dominated standard of care in terms of generating cost savings and greater QALYs. Financial Disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references. Ophthalmology Glaucoma 2023;6:395-404 Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of the American Academy of Ophthalmology
引用
收藏
页码:395 / 404
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Decision Modeling for Cost-Utility Analysis
    Kuntz, Karen M.
    VALUE IN HEALTH, 2016, 19 (06) : 700 - 701
  • [42] An instrumentalist critique of ''cost-utility analysis''
    Hildred, W
    Beauvais, F
    JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC ISSUES, 1995, 29 (04) : 1083 - 1096
  • [43] COST-UTILITY ANALYSIS OF CANCER CARE
    OESER, H
    KOEPPE, P
    MUNCHENER MEDIZINISCHE WOCHENSCHRIFT, 1984, 126 (09): : A38 - &
  • [44] A cost-utility analysis of therapy for amblyopia
    Membreno, JH
    Brown, MM
    Brown, GC
    Sharma, S
    Beauchamp, GR
    OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2002, 109 (12) : 2265 - 2271
  • [45] Cost-utility analysis, the pearl in the crown
    Brown, Melissa M.
    Brown, Gary C.
    CANADIAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY-JOURNAL CANADIEN D OPHTALMOLOGIE, 2010, 45 (03): : 211 - 212
  • [46] COST-UTILITY ANALYSIS AND PHYSICAL THERAPY
    KARHAUSEN, R
    WEBERFALKENSAMMER, H
    ZEITSCHRIFT FUR RHEUMATOLOGIE, 1982, 41 (04): : 183 - 183
  • [47] Cost-utility analysis of bariatric surgery
    Borisenko, O.
    Lukyanov, V.
    Ahmed, A. R.
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2018, 105 (10) : 1328 - 1337
  • [48] Cost-Utility Analysis in Probabilistic Models
    Baier, Christel
    2016 10TH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON THEORETICAL ASPECTS OF SOFTWARE ENGINEERING (TASE), 2016, : 1 - 1
  • [49] Cost-utility analysis of taxane therapy
    Yee, GC
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HEALTH-SYSTEM PHARMACY, 1997, 54 : S11 - S15
  • [50] Standardizing cost-utility analysis in neurosurgery
    Ament, Jared D.
    Kim, Kee D.
    NEUROSURGICAL FOCUS, 2012, 33 (01)