Dataset Information

Cost of Myopia Correction: A Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT: Myopia is one of the leading causes of visual impairment globally. Despite increasing prevalence and incidence, the associated cost of treatment remains unclear. Health care spending is a major concern in many countries and understanding the cost of myopia correction is the first step eluding to the overall cost of myopia treatment. As cost of treatment will reduce the burden of cost of illness, this will aid in future cost-benefit analysis and the allocation of healthcare resources, including considerations in integrating eye care (refractive correction with spectacles) into universal health coverage (UHC). We performed a systematic review to determine the economic costs of myopia correction. However, there were few studies for direct comparison. Costs related to myopia correction were mainly direct with few indirect costs. Annual prevalence-based direct costs for myopia ranged from $14-26 (USA), $56 (Iran) and $199 (Singapore) per capita, respectively (population: 274.63 million, 75.15 million and 3.79 million, respectively). Annually, the direct costs of contact lens were $198.30-$378.10 while spectacles and refractive surgeries were $342.50 and $19.10, respectively. This review provides an insight to the cost of myopia correction. Myopia costs are high from nation-wide perspectives because of the high prevalence of myopia, with contact lenses being the more expensive option. Without further interventions, the burden of illness of myopia will increase substantially with the projected increase in prevalence worldwide. Future studies will be necessary to generate more homogenous cost data and provide a complete picture of the global economic cost of myopia.

SUBMITTER: Foo LL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8677936 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The transition between acute care and community care can be a vulnerable period in a patients' treatment due to the potential for postdischarge adverse events. The vulnerability of this period has been attributed to factors related to the miscommunication between hospital-based and community-based physicians. Electronic discharge communication has been proposed as one solution to bridge this communication gap. Prior to widespread implementation of these tools, the costs and benefits should be considered. OBJECTIVE:To establish the cost and cost-effectiveness of electronic discharge communications compared with traditional discharge systems for individuals who have completed care with one provider and are transitioning care to a new provider. METHODS:We conducted a systematic review of the published literature, using best practices, to identify economic evaluations/cost analyses of electronic discharge communication tools. Inclusion criteria were: (1) economic analysis and (2) electronic discharge communication tool as the intervention. Quality of each article was assessed, and data were summarised using a component-based analysis. RESULTS:One thousand unique abstracts were identified, and 57 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. Four studies met final inclusion criteria. These studies varied in their primary objectives, methodology, costs reported and outcomes. All of the studies were of low to good quality. Three of the studies reported a cost-effectiveness measure ranging from an incremental daily cost of decreasing average discharge note completion by 1?day of $0.331 (2003 Canadian), a cost per page per discharge letter of €9.51 and a dynamic net present value of €31.1?million for a 5-year implementation of the intervention. None of the identified studies considered clinically meaningful patient or quality outcomes. DISCUSSION:Economic analyses of electronic discharge communications are scarcely reported, and with inconsistent methodology and outcomes. Further studies are needed to understand the cost-effectiveness and value for patient care.

Project description:PurposeTo investigate monthly and seasonal variations in the progression of myopia in children enrolled in the Correction of Myopia Evaluation Trial (COMET).MethodsAn ethnically diverse cohort of 469 myopic 6- to <12 year-old children was randomized to single vision or progressive addition lenses and followed for 3 years with 98.5% retention. Progression of myopia was measured semiannually by noncycloplegic autorefraction (Nidek ARK 700A) and annually by cycloplegic autorefraction, with the former measurements used in these analyses. The semiannual progression rate was calculated as (change in spherical equivalent refraction between two consecutive semiannual visits/number of days between the two visits) times 182.5. Months were categorized as the midpoint between two visit dates. Seasons were classified as winter (October through March) or summer (April through September). The seasonal difference was tested using a linear mixed model adjusting for demographic variables (age, sex, ethnicity), baseline refraction, and treatment group.ResultsData from 358 children (mean [± SD] age = 9.84 ± 1.27 years; mean myopia = -2.54 ± 0.84 diopters [D]) met the criteria for these analyses. Myopia progression varied systematically by month; it was slower in April through September than in the other months. Mean progression in winter was -0.35 ± 0.34 D and in summer was -0.14 ± 0.32 D, a statistically significant difference (0.21 D, P < 0.0001). The same seasonal pattern was found by age, sex, ethnicity (except in the small sample of Asians), lens type, and clinical center.ConclusionsThe slower progression of myopia found in summer is likely related to children's spending more time outdoors and fewer hours in school. The data have clinical implications regarding the time of year and the frequency with which myopic children have eye examinations and the need for precise timing of visits in clinical trials testing new myopia treatments. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00000113.).

Project description:BackgroundAfter more than 25 years, public health programs have not been able to sufficiently reduce the number of new HIV infections. Over 7,000 people become infected with HIV every day. Lack of convincing evidence of cost-effectiveness (CE) may be one of the reasons why implementation of effective programs is not occurring at sufficient scale. This paper identifies, summarizes and critiques the CE literature related to HIV-prevention interventions in low- and middle-income countries during 2005-2008.MethodsSystematic identification of publications was conducted through several methods: electronic databases, internet search of international organizations and major funding/implementing agencies, and journal browsing. Inclusion criteria included: HIV prevention intervention, year for publication (2005-2008), setting (low- and middle-income countries), and CE estimation (empirical or modeling) using outcomes in terms of cost per HIV infection averted and/or cost per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) or quality-adjusted life year (QALY).ResultsWe found 21 distinct studies analyzing the CE of HIV-prevention interventions published in the past four years (2005-2008). Seventeen CE studies analyzed biomedical interventions; only a few dealt with behavioral and environmental/structural interventions. Sixteen studies focused on sub-Saharan Africa, and only a handful on Asia, Latin America and Eastern Europe. Many HIV-prevention interventions are very cost effective in absolute terms (using costs per DALY averted), and also in country-specific relative terms (in cost per DALY measured as percentage of GDP per capita).ConclusionThere are several types of interventions for which CE studies are still not available or insufficient, including surveillance, abstinence, school-based education, universal precautions, prevention for positives and most structural interventions. The sparse CE evidence available is not easily comparable; thus, not very useful for decision making. More than 25 years into the AIDS epidemic and billions of dollars of spending later, there is still much work to be done both on costs and effectiveness to adequately inform HIV prevention planning.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To investigate the characteristics and healthcare utilisation of high-cost patients and to compare high-cost patients across payers and countries. DESIGN:Systematic review. DATA SOURCES:PubMed and Embase databases were searched until 30 October 2017. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA AND OUTCOMES:Our final search was built on three themes: 'high-cost', 'patients', and 'cost' and 'cost analysis'. We included articles that reported characteristics and utilisation of the top-X% (eg, top-5% and top-10%) patients of costs of a given population. Analyses were limited to studies that covered a broad range of services, across the continuum of care. Andersen's behavioural model was used to categorise characteristics and determinants into predisposing, enabling and need characteristics. RESULTS:The studies pointed to a high prevalence of multiple (chronic) conditions to explain high-cost patients' utilisation. Besides, we found a high prevalence of mental illness across all studies and a prevalence higher than 30% in US Medicaid and total population studies. Furthermore, we found that high costs were associated with increasing age but that still more than halve of high-cost patients were younger than 65 years. High costs were associated with higher incomes in the USA but with lower incomes elsewhere. Preventable spending was estimated at maximally 10% of spending. The top-10%, top-5% and top-1% high-cost patients accounted for respectively 68%, 55% and 24% of costs within a given year. Spending persistency varied between 24% and 48%. Finally, we found that no more than 30% of high-cost patients are in their last year of life. CONCLUSIONS:High-cost patients make up the sickest and most complex populations, and their high utilisation is primarily explained by high levels of chronic and mental illness. High-cost patients are diverse populations and vary across payer types and countries. Tailored interventions are needed to meet the needs of high-cost patients and to avoid waste of scarce resources.

Project description:Symbrachydactyly is a rare congenital malformation of the hand characterized by short or even absent fingers with or without syndactyly, mostly unilaterally present. The hand condition can vary from a small hand to only nubbins on the distal forearm. This study aims to systematically review the surgical management options for symbrachydactyly and compare functional and aesthetic outcomes.The review was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. Literature was systematically assessed searching the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, and PROSPERO databases up to January 1, 2023. Studies were identified using synonyms for 'symbrachydactyly' and 'treatment'. Inclusion criteria were the report of outcomes after surgical treatment of symbrachydactyly in humans. Studies were excluded if they were written in another language than English, German, or French. Case reports, letters to the editor, studies on animals, cadaveric, in vitro studies, biomechanical reports, surgical technique description, and papers discussing traumatic or oncologic cases were excluded.Twenty-four studies published were included with 539 patients (1037 digit corrections). Only one study included and compared two surgical techniques. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Modified Coleman Methodology Score and ranged from 25 to 47. The range of motion was the main reported outcome and demonstrated modest results in all surgical techniques. The report on aesthetics of the hand was limited in non-vascularized transfers to 2/8 studies and in vascularized transfers to 5/8 studies, both reporting satisfactory results. On average, there was a foot donor site complication rate of 22% in non-vascularized transfers, compared to 2% in vascularized transfers. The hand-related complication rate of 54% was much higher in the vascularized group than in the non-vascularized transfer with 16%.No uniform strategy to surgically improve symbrachydactyly exists. All discussed techniques show limited functional improvement with considerable complication rates, with the vascularized transfer showing relative high hand-related complications and the non-vascularized transfer showing relative high foot-related complications.There were no high-quality studies, and due to a lack of comparing studies, the data could only be analysed qualitatively. Systematic assessment of studies showed insufficient evidence to determine superiority of any procedure to treat symbrachydactyly due to inadequate study designs and comparative studies. This systematic review was registered at the National Institute for Health Research PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews number: CRD42020153590 and received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.Level of evidenceI.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42020153590.

Project description:ImportanceSeveral interventions exist for treating myopia progression in children. While these interventions' efficacy has been studied, their cost-effectiveness remains unknown and has not been compared.ObjectiveTo determine cost-effective options for controlling myopia progression in children.Design, setting, and participantsIn this cost-effectiveness analysis, a Markov model was designed to compare the cost-effectiveness of interventions for controlling myopia progression over 5 years from a societal perspective in a simulated hypothetical cohort of patients aged 10 years with myopia. Myopia interventions considered included atropine eye drops, 0.05% and 0.01%, defocus incorporated multiple segment spectacles, outdoor activity, soft contact lenses (daily disposable and multifocal), rigid gas-permeable contact lenses, progressive addition lenses, bifocal spectacle lenses, orthokeratology, highly aspherical lenslets (HALs), and red light therapy; all interventions were compared with single-vision lenses. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis determined the association of model uncertainties with the cost-effectiveness. Costs were obtained from the charges of the Hospital Authority of Hong Kong and The Chinese University of Hong Kong Eye Center.Main outcome and measuresThe mean costs (in US dollars) per child included the cost of hospital visits, medications, and optical lenses. The outcomes of effectiveness were the annual spherical equivalent refraction (SER) and axial length (AL) reductions. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for each strategy relative to single-vision lenses over a time horizon of 5 years.ResultsOutdoor activity, atropine (0.05%), red light therapy, HALs, and orthokeratology were cost-effective. The ICER of atropine, 0.05%, was US $220/SER reduction; red light therapy, US $846/SER reduction; and HALs, US $448/SER reduction. Outdoor activity yielded a savings of US $5/SER reduction and US $8/AL reduction. Orthokeratology resulted in an ICER of US $2376/AL reduction.Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that atropine eye drops, 0.05%, and outdoor activity are cost-effective for controlling myopia progression in children. Though more expensive, red light therapy, HALs, and orthokeratology may also be cost-effective. The use of these interventions may help to control myopia in a cost-effective way.

Project description:IntroductionCalculating the cost per disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted associated with interventions is an increasing popular means of assessing the cost-effectiveness of strategies to improve population health. However, there has been no systematic attempt to characterize the literature and its evolution.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies reporting cost-per-DALY averted from 2000 through 2015. We developed the Global Health Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (GHCEA) Registry, a repository of English-language cost-per-DALY averted studies indexed in PubMed. To identify candidate studies, we searched PubMed for articles with titles or abstracts containing the phrases "disability-adjusted" or "DALY". Two reviewers with training in health economics independently reviewed each article selected in our abstract review, gathering information using a standardized data collection form. We summarized descriptive characteristics on study methodology: e.g., intervention type, country of study, study funder, study perspective, along with methodological and reporting practices over two time periods: 2000-2009 and 2010-2015. We analyzed the types of costs included in analyses, the study quality on a scale from 1 (low) to 7 (high), and examined the correlation between diseases researched and the burden of disease in different world regions.ResultsWe identified 479 cost-per-DALY averted studies published from 2000 through 2015. Studies from Sub-Saharan Africa comprised the largest portion of published studies. The disease areas most commonly studied were communicable, maternal, neonatal, and nutritional disorders (67%), followed by non-communicable diseases (28%). A high proportion of studies evaluated primary prevention strategies (59%). Pharmaceutical interventions were commonly assessed (32%) followed by immunizations (28%). Adherence to good practices for conducting and reporting cost-effectiveness analysis varied considerably. Studies mainly included formal healthcare sector costs. A large number of the studies in Sub-Saharan Africa addressed high-burden conditions such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, neglected tropical diseases and malaria, and diarrhea, lower respiratory infections, meningitis, and other common infectious diseases.ConclusionThe Global Health Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry reveals a growing and diverse field of cost-per-DALY averted studies. However, study methods and reporting practices have varied substantially.

Project description:BackgroundPharmaceutical costs are the fastest-growing health-care expense in most developed countries. Higher drug costs have been shown to negatively impact patient outcomes. Studies suggest that doctors have a poor understanding of pharmaceutical costs, but the data are variable and there is no consistent pattern in awareness. We designed this systematic review to investigate doctors' knowledge of the relative and absolute costs of medications and to determine the factors that influence awareness.Methods and findingsOur search strategy included The Cochrane Library, EconoLit, EMBASE, and MEDLINE as well as reference lists and contact with authors who had published two or more articles on the topic or who had published within 10 y of the commencement of our review. Studies were included if: either doctors, trainees (interns or residents), or medical students were surveyed; there were more than ten survey respondents; cost of pharmaceuticals was estimated; results were expressed quantitatively; there was a clear description of how authors defined "accurate estimates"; and there was a description of how the true cost was determined. Two authors reviewed each article for eligibility and extracted data independently. Cost accuracy outcomes were summarized, but data were not combined in meta-analysis because of extensive heterogeneity. Qualitative data related to physicians and drug costs were also extracted. The final analysis included 24 articles. Cost accuracy was low; 31% of estimates were within 20% or 25% of the true cost, and fewer than 50% were accurate by any definition of cost accuracy. Methodological weaknesses were common, and studies of low methodological quality showed better cost awareness. The most important factor influencing the pattern and accuracy of estimation was the true cost of therapy. High-cost drugs were estimated more accurately than inexpensive ones (74% versus 31%, Chi-square p < 0.001). Doctors consistently overestimated the cost of inexpensive products and underestimated the cost of expensive ones (binomial test, 89/101, p < 0.001). When asked, doctors indicated that they want cost information and feel it would improve their prescribing but that it is not accessible.ConclusionsDoctors' ignorance of costs, combined with their tendency to underestimate the price of expensive drugs and overestimate the price of inexpensive ones, demonstrate a lack of appreciation of the large difference in cost between inexpensive and expensive drugs. This discrepancy in turn could have profound implications for overall drug expenditures. Much more focus is required in the education of physicians about costs and the access to cost information. Future research should focus on the accessibility and reliability of medical cost information and whether the provision of this information is used by doctors and makes a difference to physician prescribing. Additionally, future work should strive for higher methodological standards to avoid the biases we found in the current literature, including attention to the method of assessing accuracy that allows larger absolute estimation ranges for expensive drugs.

Dataset Information

Cost of Myopia Correction: A Systematic Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets