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.
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.
Authors: Tiarnan D L Keenan; Simon P Kelly; Ahmed Sallam; Quresh Mohamed; Adnan Tufail; Robert L Johnston Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2013-06-28 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Usha Chakravarthy; Simon P Harding; Chris A Rogers; Susan M Downes; Andrew J Lotery; Sarah Wordsworth; Barnaby C Reeves Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2012-05-11 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Mark B Horton; Christopher J Brady; Jerry Cavallerano; Michael Abramoff; Gail Barker; Michael F Chiang; Charlene H Crockett; Seema Garg; Peter Karth; Yao Liu; Clark D Newman; Siddarth Rathi; Veeral Sheth; Paolo Silva; Kristen Stebbins; Ingrid Zimmer-Galler Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2020-03-25 Impact factor: 3.536
Authors: Sandra Sülz; Hilco J van Elten; Marjan Askari; Anne Marie Weggelaar-Jansen; Robbert Huijsman Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2021-03-09 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Rafael N Miranda; Aunima R Bhuiya; Zak Thraya; Rebecca Hancock-Howard; Brian Cf Chan; Carolyn Steele Gray; Walter P Wodchis; Kednapa Thavorn Journal: JMIR Aging Date: 2022-04-20
Authors: Peter Maloca; Pascal W Hasler; Daniel Barthelmes; Patrik Arnold; Mooser Matthias; Hendrik P N Scholl; Heinrich Gerding; Justus Garweg; Tjebo Heeren; Konstantinos Balaskas; J Emanuel Ramos de Carvalho; Catherine Egan; Adnan Tufail; Sandrine A Zweifel Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2018-07-24 Impact factor: 3.283