ArticlePharmacoEconomics2026
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Low-Dose Atropine Eye Drops (0.01%) for the Treatment of Myopia in Children: A United Kingdom Perspective.
Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe cost-effectiveness of low-dose atropine SYD-101 (0.01%) eye drops in combination with standard of care (SoC) was evaluated in comparison with SoC alone for pediatric myopia. The SoC included single-vision eyeglasses or soft, daily-wear, single-vision contact lenses.
methodsA cohort state-transition model with nine mutually exclusive states encompassing myopia severity, complications, and death was developed. Population characteristics and clinical data were obtained from the STudy of Atropine for the Reduction (STAR) of Myopia Progression in Children. The model included children with a myopia progression rate of ≥ 0.50 D per year and myopia between -0.5 D and -6.0 D, inclusive, in both eyes. The analysis used the English National Health Services and Personal Social Services perspective, applying a lifetime horizon and annual discounting of costs and health effects at 3.5%, and 2023 as a common year of costing. The main outcomes were total and disaggregated costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).
resultsSYD-101 (0.01%) increased QALYs by 0.139 at an added cost of £2239 compared to SoC, resulting in an ICER of £16,164/QALY, below the willingness-to-pay threshold. The improved health outcomes were primarily driven by a reduced proportion of individuals progressing to high myopia and fewer myopia-related complications. Scenario and sensitivity analyses together validated the robustness of base-case results. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, 85% of the simulations for SYD-101 (0.01%) compared to SoC were in the northeast quadrant of the cost-effectiveness plane. The probability of SYD-101 (0.01%) being more cost-effective compared to SoC was 58.2% or 64.2% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000/QALY or £25,000/QALY, respectively.
conclusionsAdding SYD-101 (0.01%) to SoC can be considered a cost-effective option for treating pediatric myopia in the United Kingdom over a lifetime horizon. These results support the integration of SYD-101 (0.01%) into routine clinical practice to enhance long-term visual outcomes and lower healthcare expenses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42230467What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.