2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Economic Evaluation of a Home-Based Age-Related Macular Degeneration Monitoring System

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This economic analysis evaluates a home-based daily visual field monitoring system using simulation methods and applies the findings of the Home Monitoring of the Eye study to the US population at high risk for wet-form age-related macular degeneration.

          Key Points

          Question

          What are some economic considerations of home telemonitoring of age-related macular degeneration?

          Findings

          In this economic analysis using a simulation model, home telemonitoring was considered to be cost-effective in developed countries for patients at high risk for the neovascular form of age-related macular degeneration ($35 663 per quality-adjusted life-year gained). Home monitoring for age-related macular degeneration currently would cost society $907 and be cost saving for patients, incurring $1312 in government expenditures during 10 years.

          Meaning

          This simluation model suggests that supplementing usual care with home telemonitoring for patients at high risk for developing neovascular age-related macular degeneration not only reduces risk of vision loss but also is cost-effective, although incurring net costs for Medicare.

          Abstract

          Background

          Medicare recently approved coverage of home telemonitoring for early detection of incident choroidal neovascularization (CNV) among patients with age-related macular degeneration (AMD), but no economic evaluation has yet assessed its cost-effectiveness and budgetary impact.

          Objectives

          To evaluate a home-based daily visual-field monitoring system using simulation methods and to apply the findings of the Home Monitoring of the Eye study to the US population at high risk for wet-form AMD.

          Design, Setting, and Participants

          In this economic analysis, an evaluation of the potential cost, cost-effectiveness, and government budgetary impact of adoption of a home-based daily visual-field monitoring system among eligible Medicare patients was performed. Effectiveness and visual outcomes data from the Age-Related Eye Disease Study 2 Home Monitoring of the Eye study, treatment data from the Wills Eye Hospital Treat & Extend study, and AMD progression data from the Age-Related Eye Disease Study 1 were used to simulate the long-term effects of telemonitoring patients with CNV in one eye or large drusen and/or pigment abnormalities in both eyes. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analysis and an alternative scenario using the Treat & Extend study control group outcomes were used to examine uncertainty in these data and assumptions.

          Interventions

          Home telemonitoring of patients with AMD for early detection of CNV vs usual care.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, net present value of lifetime societal costs, and 10-year nominal government expenditures.

          Result

          Telemonitoring of patients with existing unilateral CNV or multiple bilateral risk factors for CNV (large drusen and retinal pigment abnormalities) incurs $907 (95% CI, −$6302 to $2809) in net lifetime societal costs, costs $1312 (95% CI, $222-$2848) per patient during 10 years from the federal government’s perspective, and results in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $35 663 (95% CI, cost savings to $235 613) per quality-adjusted life-year gained.

          Conclusions and Relevance

          Home telemonitoring of patients with AMD who are at risk for CNV was cost-effective compared with scheduled examinations alone. Monitoring patients with existing CNV in one eye is cost saving, but monitoring is generally not cost-effective among patients with low risk of CNV, including those with no or few risk factors. With Medicare coverage, monitoring incurs budgetary expenditures for the government but is cost-saving for patients at high risk of AMD. Monitoring could be cost saving to society if monitoring reduced the frequency of scheduled examinations or led to a reduction of one or more injections of ranibizumab.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          JAMA Ophthalmol
          JAMA Ophthalmol
          JAMA Ophthalmol
          JAMA Ophthalmology
          American Medical Association
          2168-6165
          2168-6173
          30 March 2017
          11 May 2017
          May 2017
          11 May 2018
          : 135
          : 5
          : 452-459
          Affiliations
          [1 ]NORC at the University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
          [2 ]The Emmes Corporation, Rockville, Maryland
          [3 ]Wills Eye Hospital, Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania
          [4 ]The Chartis Group, Chicago, Illinois
          Author notes
          Article Information
          Corresponding Author: John S. Wittenborn, NORC at the University of Chicago, 55 E Monroe St, 30th Floor, Chicago, IL 60603 ( wittenborn-john@ 123456norc.org ).
          Accepted for Publication: February 3, 2017.
          Published Online: March 30, 2017. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2017.0255
          Author Contributions: Mr Wittenborn and Dr Rein had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
          Study concept and design: Wittenborn, Clemons, Regillo, Rein.
          Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Wittenborn, Clemons, Rayess, Liffmann Kruger, Rein.
          Drafting of the manuscript: Wittenborn, Regillo, Liffmann Kruger, Rein.
          Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Clemons, Regillo, Rayess, Rein.
          Statistical analysis: Wittenborn, Rein.
          Obtained funding: Wittenborn, Rein.
          Administrative, technical, or material support: Wittenborn, Clemons, Liffmann Kruger, Rein.
          Study supervision: Regillo, Rayess, Rein.
          Conflict of Interest Disclosures: All authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest and none were reported.
          Funding/Support: This study was funded by an unrestricted grant from Notal Vision LLC, Tel Aviv, Israel.
          Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funding source had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
          Additional Contributions: Data were provided by The Emmes Corporation, which conducted the Home Monitoring of the Eye (HOME) Study, and the Mid Atlantic Retina and Wills Eye Hospital Retina Service, which conducted the Treat & Extend Study. All other data were collected from publicly available sources.
          Article
          PMC5470421 PMC5470421 5470421 eoi170011
          10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2017.0255
          5470421
          28358948
          90d30b83-f8a9-4ccc-b486-e771dfda7e85
          Copyright 2017 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.
          History
          : 18 August 2016
          : 30 January 2017
          : 3 February 2017
          Categories
          Research
          Research
          Original Investigation
          Online First

          Comments

          Comment on this article