IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharmo/v4y2020i1d10.1007_s41669-019-0141-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Jose Bartelt-Hofer

    (Ernst Moritz Arndt University of Greifswald)

  • Lilia Ben-Debba

    (Dauphine University)

  • Steffen Flessa

    (Ernst Moritz Arndt University of Greifswald)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Jose Bartelt-Hofer & Lilia Ben-Debba & Steffen Flessa, 2020. "Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations in Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma: Decision Analytic Modeling Insights," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 5-12, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:4:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1007_s41669-019-0141-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s41669-019-0141-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41669-019-0141-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s41669-019-0141-4?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
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kevin Kennedy & Gurkaran Sarohia & Dominik Podbielski & Simon Pickard & Jean-Eric Tarride & Feng Xie, 2024. "Systematic methodological review of health state values in glaucoma cost-utility analyses," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 25(8), pages 1417-1435, November.
    2. Carlo Lazzaro & Cecile van Steen & Florent Aptel & Cedric Schweitzer & Luigi Angelillo, 2022. "Cost-Utility Analysis of STN1013001, a Latanoprost Cationic Emulsion, versus Other Latanoprost Formulations (Latanoprost) in Open-Angle Glaucoma or Ocular Hypertension and Ocular Surface Disease in Fr," Post-Print hal-03696350, HAL.
    3. Georgiou, Andreas C. & Thanassoulis, Emmanuel & Papadopoulou, Alexandra, 2022. "Using data envelopment analysis in markovian decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 298(1), pages 276-292.

    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:spr:pharmo:v:4:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1007_s41669-019-0141-4. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.