These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Relative cost of a line of vision in age-related macular degeneration.
    Author: Smiddy WE.
    Journal: Ophthalmology; 2007 May; 114(5):847-54. PubMed ID: 17306878.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: To quantitate the relative cost of new therapies for age-related macular degeneration (AMD) versus saved vision. DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: Landmark AMD treatment studies were reviewed to quantitate the visual benefit. For comparison, representative treatment studies for common retinal conditions including retinal detachment, macular hole (MH), epiretinal membrane (ERM), and diabetic retinopathy were also reviewed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Several parameters to estimate Snellen lines of vision saved were defined and tabulated for each condition. A regimen of office visits, ancillary testing, and treatments was outlined. Costs for this were tabulated using Medicare-allowable costs, and costs of visual benefit (per line of vision) for each condition were calculated. Life expectancy was factored in to calculate the cost of a line of vision for each year (line-year). The proportions of costs allocated to professional, technical, and pharmaceutical expenses were tabulated for each therapy. RESULTS: The cost per line of vision saved for AMD therapies ranged from $997 for laser for extrafoveal choroidal neovascularization, to $5509 for photodynamic therapy for occult lesions, to $12 482 for pegaptanib injections. This compares to $651 for retinal detachment repair, $1658 for MH repair, $2411 for ERM peeling, $5458 for diabetic macular edema laser, $594 for panretinal photocoagulation, and $2984 to $4178 for diabetic vitrectomy. The costs per line-years ranged from $77 to $1248 for AMD, and $21 to $194 for the comparison conditions. The proportion of costs for pegaptanib treatment was 17% for professional fees and 70% for pharmaceutical fees. Assumptions incorporated in estimating costs for pegaptanib could easily have doubled because second-year costs might approximate first-year costs and the maintenance of treatment effect has not been well established. CONCLUSIONS: Although correctly heralded as a breakthrough in macular degeneration treatment, new pharmacologic therapies for AMD are extremely expensive and some yield marginal visual dividends. As in all fields of medicine that provide care to elderly patients, these costs should be considered as they relate to health care costs for the individual patient and payors, and must be considered in a larger perspective of health care benefit apportionment.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]