Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36707031›Full record

Trial reportOphthalmology. Glaucoma

Cost-Utility Analysis of a Medication Adherence-Enhancing Educational Intervention for Glaucoma.

Anna Hung, Andrew M Williams, Paula Anne Newman-Casey, Kelly W Muir, Justin Gatwood

Open access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Ophthalmology. Glaucoma. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 31% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Anna HungDurham Center of Innovation to Accelerate Discovery and Practice Transformation, Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Durham, North Carolina; Department of Population Health Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina; Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy, Durham, North Carolina. Electronic address: anna.hung@duke.edu.
Andrew M WilliamsDepartment of Ophthalmology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina; Department of Ophthalmology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Paula Anne Newman-CaseyKellogg Eye Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Kelly W MuirDurham Center of Innovation to Accelerate Discovery and Practice Transformation, Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Durham, North Carolina; Department of Ophthalmology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
Justin GatwoodCollege of Pharmacy, The University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, Tennessee.
Duke University · USUniversity of Pittsburgh · USUniversity of Tennessee Health Science Center · USW.K. Kellogg Foundation · US

Funding

Improving Glaucoma Medication AdherenceI01HX001893 · VA · DURHAM VA MEDICAL CENTER · PI MUIR, KELLY · 2018 to 2021
–
Helping Veterans Navigate Dual Pharmacy BenefitsIK2HX003359 · VA · DURHAM VA MEDICAL CENTER · PI Anna Hung · 2022 to 2026
–
HSRD VA CIN 13-410HSRD VA I01 HX001893HSRD VA IK2 HX003359
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate the cost utility of a glaucoma medication-enhancing intervention compared to standard of care over a lifetime from the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) payer perspective.

designModel-based cost-utility analysis of a glaucoma medication-enhancing intervention from a randomized clinical trial. SUBJECTS: Veterans with glaucoma, or suspected glaucoma who were prescribed topical glaucoma medications, had their visual field assessed within the last 9 months, and endorsed poor glaucoma medication adherence.

methodsVeterans were randomized either to a behavioral intervention to promote adherence or to a standard of care (control) session about general eye health. A decision analytic model was developed to simulate lifelong costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for an intervention tested in a randomized clinical trial at a single VA eye clinic. Costs included direct medical costs that the VA payer would incur, as informed initially by the clinical trial and then by published estimates. Health-state quality of life was based on published utility values. Scenario analyses included addition of booster interventions, a 3% decline in chance of staying medication adherent annually, and the combination of the two. Analyses were also conducted in the following subgroups: those with companion versus not, and those with once-daily versus more than once-daily dosing frequency.

main outcome measuresIncremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

resultsCompared to standard of care, the intervention dominated resulting in lower costs ($23 339.28 versus $23 504.02) and higher QALYs (11.62 versus 11.58). Among the 4 subgroups, the intervention dominated for 3 of them. In the fourth subgroup, those with more than once-daily dosing, the ICER was $2625/QALY. Compared to standard of care, an intervention with booster interventions led to an ICER of $3278/QALY. Assuming both a 3% annual loss in chance of continuing to be adherent and addition of booster interventions, the ICER increased to $71 371/QALY.

conclusionsFrom a VA payer perspective over a lifetime, the glaucoma medication-enhancing behavioral intervention dominated standard of care in terms of generating cost savings and greater QALYs. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.

Indexed as

GlaucomaQuality of LifeCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansMedication AdherenceUnited StatesCost-effectiveness, Glaucoma, Medication adherence

Identifiers

PMID36707031
PMCPMC10366331
OpenAlexW4317939380

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.