Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Myopia Progression Interventions in Children.

Importance: Several 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. Objective: To determine cost-effective options for controlling myopia progression in children. Design, Setting, and Participants: In 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 Measures: The 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. Results: Outdoor 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 Relevance: These 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.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of myopia management: A systematic review.

The rising prevalence of myopia is a major global public health concern. Economic evaluation of myopia interventions is critical for maximizing the benefits of treatment and the healthcare system. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of interventions for treating myopia. Five databases were searched - Embase, Emcare, PubMed, Web of Science, and ProQuest - from inception to July 2022 and a total of 2,099 articles were identified. After careful assessments, 6 studies met the eligibility criteria. The primary outcomes of this systematic review were costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The secondary outcomes included utility values and net monetary benefits (NMB). One study determined the cost-effectiveness of photorefractive screening plus treatment with 0.01% atropine, 2 studies examined cost-effectiveness of corneal refractive surgery, and 3 studies evaluated cost-effectiveness of commonly used therapies for pathologic myopia. Corneal refractive surgeries included laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK), femtosecond laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (FS-LASIK), photorefractive keratectomy (PRK), and small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE). Interventions for pathologic myopia included ranibizumab, conbercept, and photodynamic therapy (PDT). At an incremental cost of NZ$ 18 (95% CI 15, 20) (US$ 11) per person, photorefractive screening plus 0.01% atropine resulted in an ICER of NZ$ 1,590/QALY (US$ 1,001/QALY) (95% CI NZ$ 1,390, 1,791) for an incremental QALY of 0.0129 (95% CI 0.0127, 0.0131). The cost of refractive surgery in Europe ranged from €3,075 to €3,123 ([US$4,046 to $4,109 - adjusted to 2021 inflation). QALYs associated with these procedures were 23 (FS-LASIK) and 24 (SMILE and PRK) with utility values of 0.8 and ICERs ranging from approximately €14 (US$17)/QALY to €19 (US$23)/QALY. The ICER of LASIK was US$683/diopter gained (inflation-adjusted). The ICER of ranibizumab and PDT were £8,778 (US$12,032)/QALY and US$322,460/QALY respectively, with conbercept yielding a saving of 541,974 RMB (US$80,163)/QALY, respectively. The use of 0.01% atropine and corneal refractive surgery were cost-effective for treating myopia. Treating pathologic myopia with ranibizumab and conbercept were more cost-effective than PDT. Prevention of myopia progression is more cost-effective than treating pathologic myopia.