scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness of Polygenic Risk Profiling for Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma in the United Kingdom and Australia

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qinqin Liu ◽  
John Davis ◽  
Xikun Han ◽  
David A. Mackey ◽  
Stuart MacGregor ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qinqin Liu ◽  
John Davis ◽  
Xikun Han ◽  
David A Mackey ◽  
Stuart MacGregor ◽  
...  

ABSTRACTObjectivePrimary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) is the most common subtype of glaucoma worldwide. Early diagnosis and intervention is proven to slow disease progression and reduce disease burden. Currently, population-based screening for POAG is not generally recommended due to cost. In this study, we evaluate the cost-effectiveness of polygenic risk profiling as a screening tool for POAG.Methods and AnalysisWe used a Markov cohort model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of implementing polygenic risk profiling as a new POAG-screening approach in the UK and Australia. Six health states were included in this model: death, early, mild, moderate, severe, and healthy individuals. The evaluation was conducted from the healthcare payer’s perspective. We used the best available published data to calculate prevalence, transition probabilities, utility and other parameters for each health state and age group. The study followed the CHEERS checklist. Our main outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and secondary outcomes were years of blindness avoided per person and a ‘Blindness ICER’. We did one-way and two-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to reflect the uncertainty around predicting ICERs.ResultsOur proposed genetic screening programme for POAG in Australia is predicted to result in ICER of AU$34,252 (95% CI AU$21,324-95,497) and would avoid 1 year of blindness at ICER of AU$13,359 (95% CI: AU$8,143-37,448). In the UK, this screening is predicted to result in ICER of £24,783 (13,373-66,960) and would avoid 1 year of blindness at ICER of £10,095 (95%CI: £5,513-27,656). Findings were robust in all sensitivity analyses. Using the willingness to pay thresholds of $54,808 and £30,000, the proposed screening model is 79.2% likely to be cost-effective in Australia and is 60.2% likely to be cost-effective in the UK, respectively.ConclusionsWe describe and model the cost-efficacy of incorporating a polygenic risk score for POAG screening in Australia and the UK. Although the level of willingness to pay for Australian Government is uncertain, and the ICER range for the UK is broad, we showed a clear target strategy for early detection and prevention of advanced POAG in these developed countries.Copyrightthe Corresponding Author has the right to grant on behalf of all authors and does grant on behalf of all authors, an exclusive licence (or non exclusive for government employees) on a worldwide basis to the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd to permit this article (if accepted) to be published in BMJ editions and any other BMJPGL products and sublicences such use and exploit all subsidiary rights, as set out in our licence.


2008 ◽  
Vol 24 (02) ◽  
pp. 203-211 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rodolfo A. Hernández ◽  
Jennifer M. Burr ◽  
Luke D. Vale

Objectives:The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of screening for open-angle glaucoma (OAG) in the United Kingdom, given that OAG is an important cause of blindness worldwide.Methods:A Markov model was developed to estimate lifetime costs and benefits of a cohort of patients facing, alternatively, screening or current opportunistic case finding strategies. Strategies, varying in how screening would be organized (e.g., invitation for assessment by a glaucoma-trained optometrist [GO] or for simple test assessment by a technician) were developed, and allowed for the progression of OAG and treatment effects. Data inputs were obtained from systematic reviews. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.Results:Screening was more likely to be cost-effective as prevalence increased, for 40 year olds compared with 60 or 75 year olds, when the re-screening interval was greater (10 years), and for the technician strategy compared with the GO strategy. For each age cohort and at prevalence levels of ≤1 percent, the likelihood that either screening strategy would be more cost-effective than current practice was small. For those 40 years of age, “technician screening” compared with current practice has an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) that society might be willing to pay when prevalence is 6 percent to 10 percent and at over 10 percent for 60 year olds. In the United Kingdom, the age specific prevalence of OAG is much lower. Screening by GO, at any age or prevalence level, was not associated with an ICER < £30,000.Conclusions:Population screening for OAG is unlikely to be cost-effective but could be for specific subgroups at higher risk.


Eye ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 19 (8) ◽  
pp. 923-924 ◽  
Author(s):  
H D R McKee ◽  
M S Gupta ◽  
M A Ahad ◽  
M Saldaña ◽  
J R Innes

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document