Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations in Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma: Decision Analytic Modeling Insights

Jose Bartelt-Hofer (), Lilia Ben-Debba and Steffen Flessa
Additional contact information
Jose Bartelt-Hofer: Ernst Moritz Arndt University of Greifswald
Lilia Ben-Debba: Dauphine University
Steffen Flessa: Ernst Moritz Arndt University of Greifswald

PharmacoEconomics - Open, 2020, vol. 4, issue 1, No 2, 5-12

Abstract: Abstract Objective Our objective was to review, compare and gain insight into economic evaluations in primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) with a focus on existing decision analytic models. Methods A literature review was performed using clinical and specialized databases following best practices. Relevant inclusion criteria included the development of a decision analytic model, the assessment of POAG interventions, and a full economic evaluation in terms of costs and health-related outcomes. Model inputs and settings were extracted, compared and analyzed. Main study incremental outcomes were also reported. Results The literature review identified 22 full articles in alignment with the eligibility criteria for a total of 15 countries and a wide range of years from 1983 to 2018. Interventions included as competing alternatives in the eligible studies were topical medications (33%), screening or diagnosis (33%), surgical interventions (10%), laser trabeculoplasty (10%) and minimally invasive surgeries (3%). Markov models using transition states were the most common type of modeling approach. Cost-utility models using a mid- to long-term time horizon with a national payer perspective were the most frequent type of economic evaluation identified. Model states commonly included disease severity levels, as defined by glaucoma staging systems, and other relevant events such as blindness and death. Authors did not sufficiently justify key modeling assumptions, inputs or the robustness of their findings. Conclusions Decision analytic models in POAG can reasonably guide future modeling research by revealing common practices, inputs and assumptions. Furthermore, this review revealed evidence gaps in terms of unexplored interventions and treatment sequences.

Date: 2020
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (3)

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41669-019-0141-4 Abstract (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:4:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1007_s41669-019-0141-4

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/adis/journal/41669

DOI: 10.1007/s41669-019-0141-4

Access Statistics for this article

PharmacoEconomics - Open is currently edited by Timothy Wrightson and Christopher Carswell

More articles in PharmacoEconomics - Open from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().