David W Hutton1, Adam R Glassman2, Joshua D Stein1, Neil M Bressler3, Jennifer K Sun4. 1. From the Department of Ophthalmology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan (D.W.H., J.D.S.). 2. JAEB Center for Health Research, Tampa, Florida (A.R.G.). Electronic address: drcrstat2@jaeb.org. 3. Department of Ophthalmology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland (N.M.B.); and. 4. Beetham Eye Institute, Joslin Diabetes Center, Harvard Department of Ophthalmology, Boston, Massachusetts (J.K.S.), USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Because eyes with center-involved diabetic macular edema (CI-DME) and good baseline visual acuity (VA) showed no difference in VA loss when managed initially with observation, laser, or aflibercept, understanding the estimated costs of these strategies to the US population is relevant for health care planning. DESIGN: Preplanned cost analysis from a randomized controlled trial (DRCR Retina Network Protocol V). METHODS: Total costs for managing participants with CI-DME and good baseline VA assigned to aflibercept (n = 226), laser (n = 240), or observation (n = 236) during the 2-year multicenter trial were calculated. Observation or laser groups initiated aflibercept if VA decreased. The aflibercept group received injections up to every 4 weeks. Using epidemiological data and extrapolating costs, 10-year costs of care for all persons with CI-DME and good baseline VA throughout the United States were caluclated. RESULTS: Assuming that all patients in the United States with CI-DME and good baseline VA received aflibercept initially, 10-year costs were projected to be $28.80 billion compared with $14.42 billion if initially receiving laser treatment or $15.70 billion if initially observed, with aflibercept added if VA worsened in the laser or observation arms. CONCLUSIONS: Similar VA outcomes on average are obtained by initially managing CI-DME and good baseline VA with laser or observation strategies instead of immediately using aflibercept. Although any 1 of these 3 strategies might be warranted depending on an individual's specific circumstances, on a societal level, cost savings might be achieved with these first 2 approaches.
PURPOSE: Because eyes with center-involved diabetic macular edema (CI-DME) and good baseline visual acuity (VA) showed no difference in VA loss when managed initially with observation, laser, or aflibercept, understanding the estimated costs of these strategies to the US population is relevant for health care planning. DESIGN: Preplanned cost analysis from a randomized controlled trial (DRCR Retina Network Protocol V). METHODS: Total costs for managing participants with CI-DME and good baseline VA assigned to aflibercept (n = 226), laser (n = 240), or observation (n = 236) during the 2-year multicenter trial were calculated. Observation or laser groups initiated aflibercept if VA decreased. The aflibercept group received injections up to every 4 weeks. Using epidemiological data and extrapolating costs, 10-year costs of care for all persons with CI-DME and good baseline VA throughout the United States were caluclated. RESULTS: Assuming that all patients in the United States with CI-DME and good baseline VA received aflibercept initially, 10-year costs were projected to be $28.80 billion compared with $14.42 billion if initially receiving laser treatment or $15.70 billion if initially observed, with aflibercept added if VA worsened in the laser or observation arms. CONCLUSIONS: Similar VA outcomes on average are obtained by initially managing CI-DME and good baseline VA with laser or observation strategies instead of immediately using aflibercept. Although any 1 of these 3 strategies might be warranted depending on an individual's specific circumstances, on a societal level, cost savings might be achieved with these first 2 approaches.
Authors: Rohit Varma; Neil M Bressler; Quan V Doan; Michelle Gleeson; Mark Danese; Julie K Bower; Elizabeth Selvin; Chantal Dolan; Jennifer Fine; Shoshana Colman; Adam Turpcu Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Michael J Elman; Allison Ayala; Neil M Bressler; David Browning; Christina J Flaxel; Adam R Glassman; Lee M Jampol; Thomas W Stone Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2014-10-28 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Edward W Gregg; Qiuping Gu; Yiling J Cheng; K M Venkat Narayan; Catherine C Cowie Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2007-06-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Rohit Varma; Sylvia H Paz; Stanley P Azen; Ronald Klein; Denise Globe; Mina Torres; Chrisandra Shufelt; Susan Preston-Martin Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Roy W Beck; Pamela S Moke; Andrew H Turpin; Frederick L Ferris; John Paul SanGiovanni; Chris A Johnson; Eileen E Birch; Danielle L Chandler; Terry A Cox; R Clifford Blair; Raymond T Kraker Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Kakarla V Chalam; Susan B Bressler; Allison R Edwards; Brian B Berger; Neil M Bressler; Adam R Glassman; Sandeep Grover; Shailesh K Gupta; Jared S Nielsen Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2012-12-13 Impact factor: 4.799