IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0206690.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The cost-effectiveness of systematic screening for age-related macular degeneration in South Korea

Author

Listed:
  • Ra Ho
  • Lina D Song
  • Jin A Choi
  • Donghyun Jee

Abstract

Background: Interventions that can facilitate early diagnosis of age-related macular degeneration (AMD) will facilitate early treatment and improve clinical outcomes but there has been concerns about additional medical costs to the health care system. An examination through a retina fundus photography by a non-specialist has been suggested as a potential cost-effective alternative to a direct examination by a specialist, but limited scientific data exists on the cost-effectiveness of screening strategies for AMD. Our objective is to conduct an economic evaluation of various population-wide screening strategies for AMD among the South Korean population. Methods and findings: Using a Markov cohort model, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of four AMD screening strategies (opportunistic examination, opportunistic treatment, systematic photography, and systematic examination) in comparison with status quo (no screening) for South Korean adults. We projected a life time horizon to study a hypothetical cohort of 100,00 persons of age 40 with and without AMD at baseline. The outcome measures were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, cost from the societal perspective, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of each strategy. Interventions were evaluated at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of 30,000,000 KRW ($27,538) per QALY gained. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to address the model uncertainty. Opportunistic examination was strongly dominated because it generated fewer expected QALYs but incurred greater expected cost than the other screening strategies. The mean lifetime expected costs were 289,013 KRW, 363,692 KRW, 9,351,964 KRW, and 12,309,783 KRW, and the mean QALYs gained were 37.73, 37.75, 40.47, 40.68, for no screening, opportunistic treatment, systematic photography, and systematic examination, respectively. The results were most sensitive to the utility weight of mild AMD, the probability of complication from treatment, the cost of being in mild AMD, and the probability of recovery from complication. After eliminating the two weakly dominated strategies, systematic photography was cost-effective at the ICER of 3,310,448 KRW per QALY in comparison to status quo. Conclusions: Under the WTP threshold of 30,000,000 KRW per QALY, systematic photography is cost-effective for screening AMD in South Korean adults. Systematic examination by ophthalmologists generates more expected QALY and cost compared to systematic photography.

Suggested Citation

  • Ra Ho & Lina D Song & Jin A Choi & Donghyun Jee, 2018. "The cost-effectiveness of systematic screening for age-related macular degeneration in South Korea," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-14, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0206690
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0206690
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0206690
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0206690&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0206690?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hiroshi Tamura & Rei Goto & Yoko Akune & Yoshimune Hiratsuka & Shusuke Hiragi & Masakazu Yamada, 2015. "The Clinical Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Screening for Age-Related Macular Degeneration in Japan: A Markov Modeling Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(7), pages 1-20, July.
    2. Alan Cruess & Gergana Zlateva & Xiao Xu & Gièle Soubrane & Daniel Pauleikhoff & Andrew Lotery & Jordi Mones & Ronald Buggage & Caroline Schaefer & Tyler Knight & Thomas Goss, 2008. "Economic Burden of Bilateral Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 57-73, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bjoern Schwander, 2014. "Early health economic evaluation of the future potential of next generation artificial vision systems for treating blindness in Germany," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 1-10, December.
    2. Kathleen Ke, 2010. "The direct, indirect and intangible costs of visual impairment caused by neovascular age-related macular degeneration," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 11(6), pages 525-531, December.
    3. Yuliya Chuvarayan & Robert P. Finger & Juliane Köberlein-Neu, 2020. "Economic burden of blindness and visual impairment in Germany from a societal perspective: a cost-of-illness study," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(1), pages 115-127, February.
    4. Alberto Ferreira & Alexandros Sagkriotis & Melvin Olson & Jingsong Lu & Charles Makin & Fran Milnes, 2015. "Treatment Frequency and Dosing Interval of Ranibizumab and Aflibercept for Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration in Routine Clinical Practice in the USA," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(7), pages 1-12, July.
    5. Bennion, Amy E. & Shaw, Rachel L. & Gibson, Jonathan M., 2012. "What do we know about the experience of age related macular degeneration? A systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(6), pages 976-985.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0206690. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.