Peter Y Zhao1, Raheem Rahmathullah2, Brian C Stagg1,3,4, Faisal Almobarak5, Deepak P Edward6,7, Alan L Robin1,8, Joshua D Stein1,4,9. 1. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Kellogg Eye Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 2. International Eye Foundation, Kensington, Maryland. 3. National Clinician Scholars Program, Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 4. Center for Eye Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 5. King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 6. King Khaled Eye Specialist Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 7. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Illinois Eye and Ear Infirmary, Chicago. 8. Department of Ophthalmology and School of International Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. 9. Department of Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor.
Abstract
Importance: Medical and surgical interventions for glaucoma are effective only if they are affordable to patients. Little is known about how affordable glaucoma interventions are in developing and developed countries. Objective: To compare the prices of topical glaucoma medications, laser trabeculoplasty, and trabeculectomy relative with median annual household income (MA-HHI) for countries worldwide. Design, Setting and Participants: Cross-sectional observational study. For each country, we obtained prices for glaucoma medications, laser trabeculoplasty, and trabeculectomy using government pricing data, drug databases, physician fee schedules, academic publications, and communications with local ophthalmologists. Prices were adjusted for purchasing power parity and inflation to 2016 US dollars, and annual therapy prices were examined relative to the MA-HHI. Interventions costing less than 2.5% of the MA-HHI were considered affordable. Main Outcomes and Measures: Daily cost for topical glaucoma medications, cost of annual therapy with glaucoma medications, laser trabeculoplasty, and trabeculectomy relative to MA-HHI in each country. Results: Data were obtained from 38 countries, including 17 developed countries and 21 developing countries, as classified by the World Economic Outlook. We observed considerable variability in intervention prices compared with MA-HHI across the countries and across interventions, ranging from 0.1% to 5% of MA-HHI for timolol, 0.1% to 27% for latanoprost, 0.2% to 17% for laser trabeculoplasty, and 0.3% to 42% for trabeculectomy. Timolol was the most affordable medication in all countries studied and was 2.5% or more of MA-HHI in only 2 countries (5%). The annual cost of latanoprost was 2.5% or more of MA-HHI in 15 countries (41%) (15 developing countries [75%] and no developed countries). The cost of laser trabeculoplasty was 2.5% or more of the MA-HHI in 15 countries (44%) (11 developing countries [65%] and 4 developed countries [24%]). The cost of trabeculectomy was 2.5% or more of the MA-HHI in 28 countries (78%) (18 developing countries [95%] and 10 developed countries [59%]). In 18 countries (53%), laser trabeculoplasty cost less than a 3-year latanoprost supply. Conclusions and Relevance: For many patients worldwide, the costs of medical, laser, and incisional surgical interventions were 2.5% or more of the MA-HHI. Successfully reducing global blindness from glaucoma requires addressing multiple contributing factors, including making glaucoma interventions more affordable.
Importance: Medical and surgical interventions for glaucoma are effective only if they are affordable to patients. Little is known about how affordable glaucoma interventions are in developing and developed countries. Objective: To compare the prices of topical glaucoma medications, laser trabeculoplasty, and trabeculectomy relative with median annual household income (MA-HHI) for countries worldwide. Design, Setting and Participants: Cross-sectional observational study. For each country, we obtained prices for glaucoma medications, laser trabeculoplasty, and trabeculectomy using government pricing data, drug databases, physician fee schedules, academic publications, and communications with local ophthalmologists. Prices were adjusted for purchasing power parity and inflation to 2016 US dollars, and annual therapy prices were examined relative to the MA-HHI. Interventions costing less than 2.5% of the MA-HHI were considered affordable. Main Outcomes and Measures: Daily cost for topical glaucoma medications, cost of annual therapy with glaucoma medications, laser trabeculoplasty, and trabeculectomy relative to MA-HHI in each country. Results: Data were obtained from 38 countries, including 17 developed countries and 21 developing countries, as classified by the World Economic Outlook. We observed considerable variability in intervention prices compared with MA-HHI across the countries and across interventions, ranging from 0.1% to 5% of MA-HHI for timolol, 0.1% to 27% for latanoprost, 0.2% to 17% for laser trabeculoplasty, and 0.3% to 42% for trabeculectomy. Timolol was the most affordable medication in all countries studied and was 2.5% or more of MA-HHI in only 2 countries (5%). The annual cost of latanoprost was 2.5% or more of MA-HHI in 15 countries (41%) (15 developing countries [75%] and no developed countries). The cost of laser trabeculoplasty was 2.5% or more of the MA-HHI in 15 countries (44%) (11 developing countries [65%] and 4 developed countries [24%]). The cost of trabeculectomy was 2.5% or more of the MA-HHI in 28 countries (78%) (18 developing countries [95%] and 10 developed countries [59%]). In 18 countries (53%), laser trabeculoplasty cost less than a 3-year latanoprost supply. Conclusions and Relevance: For many patients worldwide, the costs of medical, laser, and incisional surgical interventions were 2.5% or more of the MA-HHI. Successfully reducing global blindness from glaucoma requires addressing multiple contributing factors, including making glaucoma interventions more affordable.
Authors: Richard I Kaplan; C Gustavo De Moraes; George A Cioffi; Lama A Al-Aswad; Dana M Blumberg Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Paula Anne Newman-Casey; Alan L Robin; Taylor Blachley; Karen Farris; Michele Heisler; Ken Resnicow; Paul P Lee Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2015-04-24 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: David Hutton; Paula Anne Newman-Casey; Mrinalini Tavag; David Zacks; Joshua Stein Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Gabriel Lazcano-Gomez; Alejandra Hernandez-Oteyza; María José Iriarte-Barbosa; Carlos Hernandez-Garciadiego Journal: Int Ophthalmol Date: 2013-07-12 Impact factor: 2.031
Authors: Dan Gong; Jonathan S Chang; Miriam Barbany; Borja F Corcostegui; Mehmet Fatih Kağan Değirmenci; Hiroto Ishikawa; Zaid Mammo; Emin Ozmert; Tommaso Rossi; Stanley Chang Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2019-05-27 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: R Brito; K C Calaza; D Pereira-Figueiredo; A A Nascimento; M C Cunha-Rodrigues Journal: Cell Mol Neurobiol Date: 2021-03-17 Impact factor: 5.046
Authors: Heiko Philippin; Einoti Matayan; Karin M Knoll; Edith Macha; Sia Mbishi; Andrew Makupa; Cristóvão Matsinhe; Vasco da Gama; Mario Monjane; Awum Joyce Ncheda; Francisco Alcides Mulobuana; Elisante Muna; Nelly Fopoussi; Gus Gazzard; Ana Patricia Marques; Peter Shah; David Macleod; William U Makupa; Matthew J Burton Journal: Lancet Glob Health Date: 2021-10-13 Impact factor: 38.927