Establishing a method to estimate the effect of antimyopia management options on lifetime cost of myopia

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

Background

Informed decisions on myopia management require an understanding of financial impact. We describe methodology for estimating lifetime myopia costs, with comparison across management options, using exemplars in Australia and China.

Methods

We demonstrate a process for modelling lifetime costs of traditional myopia management (TMM=full, single-vision correction) and active myopia management (AMM) options with clinically meaningful treatment efficacy. Evidence-based, location-specific and ethnicity-specific progression data determined the likelihood of all possible refractive outcomes. Myopia care costs were collected from published sources and key informants. Refractive and ocular health decisions were based on standard clinical protocols that responded to the speed of progression, level of myopia, and associated risks of pathology and vision impairment. We used the progressions, costs, protocols and risks to estimate and compare lifetime cost of myopia under each scenario and tested the effect of 0%, 3% and 5% annual discounting, where discounting adjusts future costs to 2020 value.

Results

Low-dose atropine, antimyopia spectacles, antimyopia multifocal soft contact lenses and orthokeratology met our AMM inclusion criteria. Lifetime cost for TMM with 3% discounting was US$7437 (CI US$4953 to US$10 740) in Australia and US$8006 (CI US$3026 to US$13 707) in China. The lowest lifetime cost options with 3% discounting were antimyopia spectacles (US$7280, CI US$5246 to US$9888) in Australia and low-dose atropine (US$4453, CI US$2136 to US$9115) in China.

Conclusions

Financial investment in AMM during childhood may be balanced or exceeded across a lifetime by reduced refractive progression, simpler lenses, and reduced risk of pathology and vision loss. Our methodology can be applied to estimate cost in comparable scenarios.

Related collections

Most cited references 94

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Global Prevalence of Myopia and High Myopia and Temporal Trends from 2000 through 2050.

Brien A. Holden, Timothy Fricke, David Wilson … (2016)

Myopia is a common cause of vision loss, with uncorrected myopia the leading cause of distance vision impairment globally. Individual studies show variations in the prevalence of myopia and high myopia between regions and ethnic groups, and there continues to be uncertainty regarding increasing prevalence of myopia.

0 comments Cited 1256 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Is Open Access

Global causes of blindness and distance vision impairment 1990-2020: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Seth R Flaxman, Rupert Bourne, Serge Resnikoff … (2017)

Contemporary data for causes of vision impairment and blindness form an important basis of recommendations in public health policies. Refreshment of the Global Vision Database with recently published data sources permitted modelling of cause of vision loss data from 1990 to 2015, further disaggregation by cause, and forecasts to 2020.

0 comments Cited 851 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS)--explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force.

Don Husereau, Michael R. Drummond, Stavros Petrou … (2013)

Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting because substantial information must be conveyed to allow scrutiny of study findings. Despite a growth in published reports, existing reporting guidelines are not widely adopted. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user-friendly manner. A checklist is one way to help authors, editors, and peer reviewers use guidelines to improve reporting. The task force's overall goal was to provide recommendations to optimize the reporting of health economic evaluations. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines into one current, useful reporting guidance. The CHEERS Elaboration and Explanation Report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force facilitates the use of the CHEERS statement by providing examples and explanations for each recommendation. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication. The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. Previously published checklists or guidance documents related to reporting economic evaluations were identified from a systematic review and subsequent survey of task force members. A list of possible items from these efforts was created. A two-round, modified Delphi Panel with representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, and government, as well as the editorial community, was used to identify a minimum set of items important for reporting from the larger list. Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed, with some specific recommendations for single study-based and model-based economic evaluations. The final recommendations are subdivided into six main categories: 1) title and abstract, 2) introduction, 3) methods, 4) results, 5) discussion, and 6) other. The recommendations are contained in the CHEERS statement, a user-friendly 24-item checklist. The task force report provides explanation and elaboration, as well as an example for each recommendation. The ISPOR CHEERS statement is available online via Value in Health or the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices - CHEERS Task Force webpage (http://www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp). We hope that the ISPOR CHEERS statement and the accompanying task force report guidance will lead to more consistent and transparent reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate wider dissemination and uptake of this guidance, we are copublishing the CHEERS statement across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups to consider endorsing the CHEERS statement. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in 5 years. Copyright © 2013 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

0 comments Cited 468 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): Br J Ophthalmol

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Br J Ophthalmol

Journal ID (hwp): bjophthalmol

Journal ID (publisher-id): bjo

Title: The British Journal of Ophthalmology

Publisher: BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )

ISSN (Print): 0007-1161

ISSN (Electronic): 1468-2079

Publication date (Print): August 2023

Publication date (Electronic): 8 March 2022

Volume: 107

Issue: 8

Pages: 1043-1050

Affiliations

[1 ] Brien Holden Vision Institute , Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

[2 ] departmentDepartment of Optometry and Vision Sciences , University of Melbourne , Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

[3 ] departmentSchool of Optometry and Vision Science , University of New South Wales , Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

[4 ] departmentZhongshan Ophthalmic Center , Sun Yat-Sen University , Guangzhou, Guangdong, China

[5 ] departmentCentre for Eye Research Australia , Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital , East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

[6 ] Johns Hopkins Carey Business School , Baltimore, Maryland, USA

Author notes

[Correspondence to ] Mr Tim R Fricke, Brien Holden Vision Institute, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; t.fricke@ 123456bhvi.org

Author information

Tim R Fricke http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8087-6835

Padmaja Sankaridurg http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5537-6193

Kevin D Frick http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0178-5319

Article

Publisher ID: bjophthalmol-2021-320318

DOI: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2021-320318

PMC ID: 10359589

PubMed ID: 35264328

SO-VID: f5a27606-2423-4d02-b059-c8c8cdafdd45

License:

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.