Frontiers in Public Health (Feb 2023)

Cost-effectiveness analysis of myopia management: A systematic review

  • Sylvia Agyekum,
  • Poemen P. Chan,
  • Poemen P. Chan,
  • Poemen P. Chan,
  • Poemen P. Chan,
  • Yuzhou Zhang,
  • Zhaohua Huo,
  • Benjamin H. K. Yip,
  • Patrick Ip,
  • Clement C. Tham,
  • Clement C. Tham,
  • Clement C. Tham,
  • Clement C. Tham,
  • Li Jia Chen,
  • Li Jia Chen,
  • Li Jia Chen,
  • Li Jia Chen,
  • Xiu Juan Zhang,
  • Xiu Juan Zhang,
  • Xiu Juan Zhang,
  • Xiu Juan Zhang,
  • Chi Pui Pang,
  • Chi Pui Pang,
  • Chi Pui Pang,
  • Chi Pui Pang,
  • Jason C. Yam,
  • Jason C. Yam,
  • Jason C. Yam,
  • Jason C. Yam,
  • Jason C. Yam,
  • Jason C. Yam,
  • Jason C. Yam

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1093836
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 11

Abstract

Read online

The rising prevalence of myopia is a major global public health concern. Economic evaluation of myopia interventions is critical for maximizing the benefits of treatment and the healthcare system. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of interventions for treating myopia. Five databases were searched – Embase, Emcare, PubMed, Web of Science, and ProQuest – from inception to July 2022 and a total of 2,099 articles were identified. After careful assessments, 6 studies met the eligibility criteria. The primary outcomes of this systematic review were costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The secondary outcomes included utility values and net monetary benefits (NMB). One study determined the cost-effectiveness of photorefractive screening plus treatment with 0.01% atropine, 2 studies examined cost-effectiveness of corneal refractive surgery, and 3 studies evaluated cost-effectiveness of commonly used therapies for pathologic myopia. Corneal refractive surgeries included laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK), femtosecond laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (FS-LASIK), photorefractive keratectomy (PRK), and small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE). Interventions for pathologic myopia included ranibizumab, conbercept, and photodynamic therapy (PDT). At an incremental cost of NZ$ 18 (95% CI 15, 20) (US$ 11) per person, photorefractive screening plus 0.01% atropine resulted in an ICER of NZ$ 1,590/QALY (US$ 1,001/QALY) (95% CI NZ$ 1,390, 1,791) for an incremental QALY of 0.0129 (95% CI 0.0127, 0.0131). The cost of refractive surgery in Europe ranged from €3,075 to €3,123 ([US$4,046 to $4,109 - adjusted to 2021 inflation). QALYs associated with these procedures were 23 (FS-LASIK) and 24 (SMILE and PRK) with utility values of 0.8 and ICERs ranging from approximately €14 (US$17)/QALY to €19 (US$23)/QALY. The ICER of LASIK was US$683/diopter gained (inflation-adjusted). The ICER of ranibizumab and PDT were £8,778 (US$12,032)/QALY and US$322,460/QALY respectively, with conbercept yielding a saving of 541,974 RMB (US$80,163)/QALY, respectively. The use of 0.01% atropine and corneal refractive surgery were cost-effective for treating myopia. Treating pathologic myopia with ranibizumab and conbercept were more cost-effective than PDT. Prevention of myopia progression is more cost-effective than treating pathologic myopia.

Keywords