A cost-utility analysis of therapy for amblyopia

被引:95
|
作者
Membreno, JH
Brown, MM
Brown, GC
Sharma, S
Beauchamp, GR
机构
[1] Ctr Evidence Based Hlth Care Econ, Flourtown, PA 19031 USA
[2] Temple Univ, Sch Med, Dept Ophthalmol, Philadelphia, PA 19122 USA
[3] Queens Med Coll, Ocular Cost Effect Hlth Policy Unit, Dept Ophthalmol, Kingston, ON, Canada
[4] Queens Med Coll, Ocular Cost Effect Hlth Policy Unit, Dept Epidemiol, Kingston, ON, Canada
[5] Ctr Adult Strabismus, Dallas, TX USA
[6] Univ Texas, SW Med Ctr, Dept Ophthalmol, Dallas, TX USA
关键词
D O I
10.1016/S0161-6420(02)01286-1
中图分类号
R77 [眼科学];
学科分类号
100212 ;
摘要
Objective: Evaluation of the incremental cost-effectiveness of therapy for amblyopia. Design: Cost-utility reference-case analysis. Methods. A cost-utility analysis was performed from a third-party insurer perspective by using decision analysis, evidence-based data from the literature, and patient preference-based time trade-off utility values. Database: Patient-derived time trade-off ocular utility values and the American Academy of Ophthalmology Preferred Practice Pattern guidelines for the treatment of amblyopia. Intervention: Treatment of childhood amblyopia using medical and surgical therapies per the American Academy of Ophthalmology Preferred Practice Pattern. Main Outcome Measure: Dollars (year 2001 nominal U.S. dollars) expended per quality-adjusted life-year ($/QALY) gained. Results: Treatment for amblyopia resulted in a $/QALY gained of $2281 with a discount rate of 3% for costs and outcomes. Sensitivity analysis, varying costs and utility values by 10%, resulted in a $/QALY gained range from $2053 to $2509. Conclusions: When compared with other interventions in health care, therapy for amblyopia seems to be highly cost-effective. This information is increasingly important for health care policy makers. Ophthalmology 2002;109:2265-2271 (C) 2002 by the American Academy of Ophthalmology.
引用
收藏
页码:2265 / 2271
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] COST-UTILITY ANALYSIS AND PHYSICAL THERAPY
    KARHAUSEN, R
    WEBERFALKENSAMMER, H
    [J]. ZEITSCHRIFT FUR RHEUMATOLOGIE, 1982, 41 (04): : 183 - 183
  • [2] COST-UTILITY ANALYSIS OF THROMBOLYTIC THERAPY
    SIMOONS, ML
    VOS, J
    MARTENS, LL
    [J]. EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL, 1991, 12 (06) : 694 - 699
  • [3] Cost-utility analysis of taxane therapy
    Yee, GC
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HEALTH-SYSTEM PHARMACY, 1997, 54 : S11 - S15
  • [4] Cost-utility analysis
    Brown, GC
    Brown, MM
    Sharma, S
    [J]. ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2001, 134 (07) : 625 - 626
  • [5] COST-UTILITY ANALYSIS
    NICHOLLS, A
    [J]. BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1993, 307 (6913): : 1213 - 1213
  • [6] Cost-utility analysis for smoking cessation therapy in Japan
    Igarashi, A.
    Fukuda, T.
    Oshima, A.
    Nakamura, M.
    Tsutani, K.
    [J]. VALUE IN HEALTH, 2006, 9 (06) : A384 - A384
  • [7] COST-UTILITY ANALYSIS IN UROLOGY
    Fero, Katherine
    Sharma, Vidit
    Lec, Patrick
    Saigal, Christopher
    Chamie, Karim
    [J]. JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2021, 206 : E435 - E436
  • [8] Cost-utility analysis for UTIs
    Schaefer, SE
    [J]. JOURNAL OF FAMILY PRACTICE, 1997, 44 (04): : 329 - 329
  • [9] Cost-utility analysis in schizophrenia
    Awad, AG
    Voruganti, LP
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PSYCHIATRY, 1999, 60 : 22 - 28
  • [10] Cost-utility analysis - Response
    Neumann, PJ
    Chapman, RH
    Stone, PW
    [J]. ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2001, 134 (07) : 626 - 626