Costes en pacientes miopes magnos con y sin neovascularización coroidea miópica / Cost of myopic patients with and without myopic choroidal neovascularisation

OBJETIVO: Estudiar los costes asociados a la enfermedad en pacientes miopes magnos (MM) con neovascularización coroidea miópica (NVCm) y sin NVCm. MÉTODOS: Estudio observacional, retrospectivo, transversal, multicéntrico de pacientes MM adultos con y sin NVCm. Se calcularon anualizados el coste directo médico (CDM) desde la perspectiva del Sistema Nacional de Salud, el coste directo no médico (CDnM) desde la perspectiva del paciente y los costes derivados de la pérdida de productividad laboral. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron 137 NVCm y a 48 MM pacientes (edad media [DE]: 55,1 [2,8] vs. 54,7 [13,8]; p = 0,2). El 80% fueron mujeres en ambos grupos. El tiempo de observación (meses) osciló entre 17,9 (9,6) en el ojo derecho (OD) y 20,0 (9,7) en el ojo izquierdo (OI) en NVCm y 47,1 (21,5) OD y 45,5 (20,7) OI en MM. Se observó un mayor porcentaje de visitas a urgencias en pacientes NVCm vs. MM (41,7 vs. 25%; p = 0,06) y a especialistas de retina (91,2 vs. 77,1%; p = 0,01). El CDM fue mayor en NVCm: 1.985 € (IC 95%: 1.772-2.198) vs. 356 € (251-480) MM; p < 0,001. El CDnM también fue más alto en NVCm: 256 € (11-524) vs. 19 € (11-26) MM; p > 0,4. El número de ojos afectos, tiempo de seguimiento y NVCm se asociaron con los costes directos. El impacto en la actividad laboral fue mayor en NVCm (bastante/muy afectados): 27,7 vs. 10,4% en MM. La NVCm mostró una asociación significativa con la afectación laboral (OR: 3,47; IC 95%: 10,101-1,195). CONCLUSIONES: La NVCm implica un coste médico más elevado que la MM. Los pacientes con NVCm presentan una mayor necesidad de cuidados y de dispositivos de ayuda, así como un mayor impacto de la enfermedad en su vida profesional (AU) - es OBJECTIVE: To study the costs associated with high myopia (HM) with choroidal neovascularisation (mCNV) or without mCNV. METHODS: Observational, retrospective, cross-sectional, and multicentre study (HM and mCNV) conducted on adult patients. Annualised medical direct cost (MDC) from the perspective of the National Health System, the non-medical direct cost (nMDC) from the patient perspective, and productivity losses were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 137 mCNV and 48 HM patients were included (mean age [SD]: 55.1 [2.8] vs. 54.7 [13.8];P=.2), with 80% women in both groups. The observation time (months) ranged from 17.9 (9.6) right eye (RE) and 20.0 (9.7), left eye (LE) in mCNV and 47.1 (21.5) RE/45.5 (20.7) LE in MM. A higher percentage of emergency room visits was observed in mCNV vs. HM patients (41.7 vs. 25%; P=.06) and retinal specialists (91.2 vs. 77.1%; P=.01). The MDC was higher in mCNV: € 1,985 (95% CI: 1772-2198) vs. € 356 (251-480) HM, P<.001. The nMDC was also higher in mCNV: € 256 (11-524) vs. €19 (11-26) HM,P>.4. The number of affected eyes, the follow-up time, and the mCNV were factors associated with direct costs. The impact on work productivity was higher in mCNV (quite/very concerned): 27.7 vs. 10.4% HM. The mCNV showed a significant association with activity impairment (OR: 3.47, 95% CI: 10.101-1.195). CONCLUSIONS: mCNV involves higher medical costs than HM. In addition, mCNV patients have a greater need of care and assistive devices, and greater impact of the disease in their work productivity

OBJECTIVE: To study the costs associated with high myopia (HM) with choroidal neovascularisation (mCNV) or without mCNV. METHODS: Observational, retrospective, cross-sectional, and multicentre study (HM and mCNV) conducted on adult patients. Annualised medical direct cost (MDC) from the perspective of the National Health System, the non-medical direct cost (nMDC) from the patient perspective, and productivity losses were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 137 mCNV and 48 HM patients were included (mean age [SD]: 55.1 [2.8] vs. 54.7 [13.8];P=.2), with 80% women in both groups. The observation time (months) ranged from 17.9 (9.6) right eye (RE) and 20.0 (9.7), left eye (LE) in mCNV and 47.1 (21.5) RE/45.5 (20.7) LE in MM. A higher percentage of emergency room visits was observed in mCNV vs. HM patients (41.7 vs. 25%; P=.06) and retinal specialists (91.2 vs. 77.1%; P=.01). The MDC was higher in mCNV: € 1,985 (95% CI: 1772-2198) vs. € 356 (251-480) HM, P<.001. The nMDC was also higher in mCNV: € 256 (11-524) vs. €19 (11-26) HM,P>.4. The number of affected eyes, the follow-up time, and the mCNV were factors associated with direct costs. The impact on work productivity was higher in mCNV (quite/very concerned): 27.7 vs. 10.4% HM. The mCNV showed a significant association with activity impairment (OR: 3.47, 95% CI: 10.101-1.195). CONCLUSIONS: mCNV involves higher medical costs than HM. In addition, mCNV patients have a greater need of care and assistive devices, and greater impact of the disease in their work productivity

Cost of myopic patients with and without myopic choroidal neovascularisation. / Costes en pacientes miopes magnos con y sin neovascularización coroidea miópica.

OBJECTIVE: To study the costs associated with high myopia (HM) with choroidal neovascularisation (mCNV) or without mCNV. METHODS: Observational, retrospective, cross-sectional, and multicentre study (HM and mCNV) conducted on adult patients. Annualised medical direct cost (MDC) from the perspective of the National Health System, the non-medical direct cost (nMDC) from the patient perspective, and productivity losses were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 137 mCNV and 48 HM patients were included (mean age [SD]: 55.1 [2.8] vs. 54.7 [13.8]; P=.2), with 80% women in both groups. The observation time (months) ranged from 17.9 (9.6) right eye (RE) and 20.0 (9.7), left eye (LE) in mCNV and 47.1 (21.5) RE/45.5 (20.7) LE in MM. A higher percentage of emergency room visits was observed in mCNV vs. HM patients (41.7 vs. 25%; P=.06) and retinal specialists (91.2 vs. 77.1%; P=.01). The MDC was higher in mCNV: € 1,985 (95% CI: 1772-2198) vs. € 356 (251-480) HM, P<.001. The nMDC was also higher in mCNV: € 256 (11-524) vs. €19 (11-26) HM, P>.4. The number of affected eyes, the follow-up time, and the mCNV were factors associated with direct costs. The impact on work productivity was higher in mCNV (quite/very concerned): 27.7 vs. 10.4% HM. The mCNV showed a significant association with activity impairment (OR: 3.47, 95% CI: 10.101-1.195). CONCLUSIONS: mCNV involves higher medical costs than HM. In addition, mCNV patients have a greater need of care and assistive devices, and greater impact of the disease in their work productivity.

Ranibizumab, verteporfin photodynamic therapy or observation for the treatment of myopic choroidal neovascularization: cost effectiveness in the UK.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of ranibizumab compared with verteporfin photodynamic therapy (vPDT) or no treatment (observation) in patients with visual impairment due to myopic choroidal neovascularization (CNV). METHODS: A Markov model with health states defined by best-corrected visual acuity and a 3-month cycle length was developed. It had a healthcare provider (UK National Health Service and personal social services) perspective, a lifetime time horizon, and was based on 2011 prices; future costs and health outcomes were discounted at 3.5 % per annum. Baseline characteristics were based on the phase III RADIANCE (Ranibizumab and vPDT Evaluation in Myopic CNV) study, and year 1 health-state transitions were based on this and the VIP (Verteporfin in Photodynamic Therapy) study. Extensive sensitivity analyses tested the robustness of the model. RESULTS: The lifetime cost of treating myopic CNV with ranibizumab was £12,866, whereas vPDT and observation were associated with total costs of £14,421 and £8,163, respectively. Ranibizumab treatment produced higher cumulative quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs; 12.99) than vPDT (12.60) or observation (12.45). Ranibizumab treatment was therefore dominant, with greater health gains and lower overall costs than vPDT. Ranibizumab was cost effective compared with observation, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £8,778/QALY. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, ranibizumab had a 100 % and 88 % probability of being cost effective compared with vPDT and observation, respectively, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000/QALY. CONCLUSION: This study indicates that ranibizumab therapy is dominant over vPDT for the treatment of visual impairment due to CNV secondary to pathologic myopia in the UK healthcare setting and cost effective compared with observation.