J F Boivin1, M McGregor, C Archer. 1. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES AND SETTING: To determine the cost effectiveness of screening for glaucoma. METHODS: Information on treatment efficacy, diagnostic methods, epidemiological characteristics of glaucoma, and costs were determined from the literature, from administrative databases, and from experts. Scenarios with different screening frequency, age, participation in screening, compliance with treatment, treatment efficacy, and diagnostic tests were examined. RESULTS: The initial scenario comprised three-yearly screening of subjects aged 40-79 by funduscopy and tonometry, followed by perimetry when abnormalities were discovered. The assumption of levels of participation in screening and of compliance with treatment of 75%, and treatment efficacy of 50% resulted in a cost of $C100,000 per year of blindness prevented. A scenario in which screening was restricted to subjects aged 65-79, with the same input variables, would prevent 81% of the cases of blindness prevented with scenario 1, at a cost of $C42,000 per year of blindness prevented. Screening with tonometry only as the initial diagnostic test in subjects aged 65-79 would result in a cost of $C36,000 per year of blindness prevented, but would only prevent 59% of the cases prevented with scenario 1. CONCLUSIONS: There is as yet no proof that treatment of glaucoma or of high intraocular pressure will arrest the progression of glaucoma to blindness. Even when treatment efficacy is assumed to be as high as 50%, however, the cost effectiveness of most glaucoma screening programmes considered would not be competitive.
OBJECTIVES AND SETTING: To determine the cost effectiveness of screening for glaucoma. METHODS: Information on treatment efficacy, diagnostic methods, epidemiological characteristics of glaucoma, and costs were determined from the literature, from administrative databases, and from experts. Scenarios with different screening frequency, age, participation in screening, compliance with treatment, treatment efficacy, and diagnostic tests were examined. RESULTS: The initial scenario comprised three-yearly screening of subjects aged 40-79 by funduscopy and tonometry, followed by perimetry when abnormalities were discovered. The assumption of levels of participation in screening and of compliance with treatment of 75%, and treatment efficacy of 50% resulted in a cost of $C100,000 per year of blindness prevented. A scenario in which screening was restricted to subjects aged 65-79, with the same input variables, would prevent 81% of the cases of blindness prevented with scenario 1, at a cost of $C42,000 per year of blindness prevented. Screening with tonometry only as the initial diagnostic test in subjects aged 65-79 would result in a cost of $C36,000 per year of blindness prevented, but would only prevent 59% of the cases prevented with scenario 1. CONCLUSIONS: There is as yet no proof that treatment of glaucoma or of high intraocular pressure will arrest the progression of glaucoma to blindness. Even when treatment efficacy is assumed to be as high as 50%, however, the cost effectiveness of most glaucoma screening programmes considered would not be competitive.