Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening for open angle glaucoma : a systematic review and economic evaluation

By Jennifer Margaret Burr, Graham Mowatt, Rodolfo Andrés Hernández, Muhammad Ardul Rehman Siddiqui, Jonathan Alistair Cook, Tania Lourenco, Craig R Ramsay, Luke David Vale, Cynthia Mary Fraser, Augusto Azuara-Blanco, J. Deeks, J. Cairns, R. Wormald, S. McPherson, K. Rabindranath and Adrian Maxwell Grant

Abstract

Objectives: To assess whether open angle glaucoma (OAG) screening meets the UK National Screening Committee criteria, to compare screening strategies with case finding, to estimate test parameters, to model estimates of cost and cost-effectiveness, and to identify areas for future research. Data sources: Major electronic databases were searched up to December 2005. Review methods: Screening strategies were developed by wide consultation. Markov submodels were developed to represent screening strategies. Parameter estimates were determined by systematic reviews of epidemiology, economic evaluations of screening, and effectiveness (test accuracy, screening and treatment). Tailored highly sensitive electronic searches were undertaken. Results: Most potential screening tests reviewed had an estimated specificity of 85% or higher. No test was clearly most accurate, with only a few, heterogeneous studies for each test. No randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of screening were identified. Based on two treatment RCTs, early treatment reduces the risk of progression. Extrapolating from this, and assuming accelerated progression with advancing disease severity, without treatment the mean time to blindness in at least one eye was approximately 23 years, compared to 35 years with treatment. Prevalence would have to be about 3–4% in 40 year olds with a screening interval of 10 years to approach costeffectiveness. It is predicted that screening might be cost-effective in a 50-year-old cohort at a prevalence of 4% with a 10-year screening interval. General population screening at any age, thus, appears not to be cost-effective. Selective screening of groups with higher prevalence (family history, black ethnicity) might be worthwhile, although this would only cover 6% of the population. Extension to include other at-risk cohorts (e.g. myopia and diabetes) would include 37% of the general population, but the prevalence is then too low for screening to be considered cost-effective. Screening using a test with initial automated classification followed by assessment by a specialised optometrist, for test positives, was more cost-effective than initial specialised optometric assessment. The cost-effectiveness of the screening programme was highly sensitive to the perspective on costs (NHS or societal). In the base-case model, the NHS costs of visual impairment were estimated as £669. If annual societal costs were £8800, then screening might be considered cost-effective for a 40-year-old cohort with 1% OAG prevalence assuming a willingness to pay of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Of lesser importance were changes to estimates of attendance for sight tests, incidence of OAG, rate of progression and utility values for each stage of OAG severity. Cost-effectiveness was not particularly sensitive to the accuracy of screening tests within the ranges observed. However, a highly specific test is required to reduce large numbers of false-positive referrals. The findings that population screening is unlikely to be cost-effective are based on an economic model whose parameter estimates have considerable uncertainty. In particular, if rate of progression and/or costs of visual impairment are higher than estimated then screening could be cost-effective. Conclusions: While population screening is not costeffective, the targeted screening of high-risk groups may be. Procedures for identifying those at risk, for quality assuring the programme, as well as adequate service provision for those screened positive would all be needed. Glaucoma detection can be improved by increasing attendance for eye examination, and improving the performance of current testing by either refining practice or adding in a technology-based first assessment, the latter being the more cost-effective option. This has implications for any future organisational changes in community eye-care services. Further research should aim to develop and provide quality data to populate the economic model, by conducting a feasibility study of interventions to improve detection, by obtaining further data on costs of blindness, risk of progression and health outcomes, and by conducting an RCT of interventions to improve the uptake of glaucoma testing.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Topics: Cost-benefit Analysis, Glaucoma, Open-Angle, Screening, Health Technology Assessment, Program Evaluation, RE Ophthalmology
Publisher: Gray Publishing
Year: 2007
DOI identifier: 10.3310/hta11410
OAI identifier: oai:aura.abdn.ac.uk:2164/174
Journal:
Download PDF:
Sorry, we are unable to provide the full text but you may find it at the following location(s):
  • http://hdl.handle.net/2164/174 (external link)
  • http://dx.doi.org/10.3310/hta1... (external link)
  • Suggested articles

    Citations

    1. (2001). 1 Clinical and cost-effectiveness of donepezil, rivastigmine and galantamine for Alzheimer’s disease: a rapid and systematic
    2. (2007). 19 Clinical effectiveness and costeffectiveness of growth hormone in adults in relation to impact on quality of life: a systematic review and economic
    3. (2007). 4 A systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of neuroimaging assessments used to visualise the seizure focus in people with refractory epilepsy being considered for surgery. By Whiting
    4. (2007). 5 A systematic review of quantitative and qualitative research on the role and effectiveness of written information available to patients about individual medicines. By
    5. (1998). A review by
    6. (2002). A study of the methods used to select review criteria for clinical audit. By Hearnshaw
    7. (2007). All rights reserved.
    8. (2007). All rights reserved. No. 34 A systematic review of comparisons of effect sizes derived from randomised and non-randomised studies. By MacLehose
    9. (2007). All rights reserved. Volume 9,
    10. Assessm ent 2007;Vol. 11: N o. 41 Screening for open angle glaucom a
    11. (2007). Assessment Programme Diagnostic Technologies & Screening Panel Members Chair, Dr Ron Zimmern, Director of the Public Health Genetics Unit, Strangeways Research Laboratories, Cambridge Ms Norma Armston, Freelance Consumer Advocate,
    12. authors would like to know your views about this report.
    13. (2003). How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical
    14. (2007). No. 1 Pemetrexed disodium for the treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma: a systematic review and economic evaluation. By Dundar
    15. (2006). No. 1 The clinical and cost-effectiveness of donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine and memantine for Alzheimer’s disease. By Loveman E,
    16. (2007). The website also provides information about the HTA Programme and lists the membership of the various committees. HTA The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening for open angle glaucoma: a systematic review and economic evaluation
    17. (2004). What is the best imaging strategy for acute stroke? By

    To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.