St Andrews Research Repository

St Andrews University Home
View Item 
  •   St Andrews Research Repository
  • University of St Andrews Research
  • University of St Andrews Research
  • University of St Andrews Research
  • View Item
  •   St Andrews Research Repository
  • University of St Andrews Research
  • University of St Andrews Research
  • University of St Andrews Research
  • View Item
  •   St Andrews Research Repository
  • University of St Andrews Research
  • University of St Andrews Research
  • University of St Andrews Research
  • View Item
  • Register / Login
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

Surveillance for ocular hypertension : an evidence synthesis and economic evaluation

Thumbnail
View/Open
mon1629.pdf (5.313Mb)
Date
06/2012
Author
Burr, Jennifer Margaret
Botello-Pinzon, P.
Takwoingi, Y.
Hernandez, R.
Vazquez-Montes, M.
Elders, A.
Asaoka, R.
Banister, K.
van der Schoot, J.
Fraser, C.
King, A.
Lemij, H.
Sanders, R.
Vernon, S.
Tuulonen, A.
Kotecha, A.
Glasziou, P.
Garway-Heath, D.
Crabb, D.
Vale, L.
Azuara-Blanco, A.
Perera, R.
Ryan, Mandy
Deeks, J.
Cook, J.
Keywords
RE Ophthalmology
Metadata
Show full item record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine effective and efficient monitoring criteria for ocular hypertension [raised intraocular pressure (IOP)] through (i) identification and validation of glaucoma risk prediction models; and (ii) development of models to determine optimal surveillance pathways. DESIGN: A discrete event simulation economic modelling evaluation. Data from systematic reviews of risk prediction models and agreement between tonometers, secondary analyses of existing datasets (to validate identified risk models and determine optimal monitoring criteria) and public preferences were used to structure and populate the economic model. SETTING: Primary and secondary care. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with ocular hypertension (IOP > 21mmHg) and the public (surveillance preferences). INTERVENTIONS: We compared five pathways: two based on National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines with monitoring interval and treatment depending on initial risk stratification, 'NICE intensive' (4-monthly to annual monitoring) and 'NICE conservative' (6-monthly to biennial monitoring); two pathways, differing in location (hospital and community), with monitoring biennially and treatment initiated for a >/= 6% 5-year glaucoma risk; and a 'treat all' pathway involving treatment with a prostaglandin analogue if IOP > 21 mmHg and IOP measured annually in the community. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Glaucoma cases detected; tonometer agreement; public preferences; costs; willingness to pay and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). RESULTS: The best available glaucoma risk prediction model estimated the 5-year risk based on age and ocular predictors (IOP, central corneal thickness, optic nerve damage and index of visual field status). Taking the average of two IOP readings, by tonometry, true change was detected at two years. Sizeable measurement variability was noted between tonometers. There was a general public preference for monitoring; good communication and understanding of the process predicted service value. 'Treat all' was the least costly and 'NICE intensive' the most costly pathway. Biennial monitoring reduced the number of cases of glaucoma conversion compared with a 'treat all' pathway and provided more QALYs, but the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was considerably more than pound30,000. The 'NICE intensive' pathway also avoided glaucoma conversion, but NICE-based pathways were either dominated (more costly and less effective) by biennial hospital monitoring or had a ICERs > pound30,000. Results were not sensitive to the risk threshold for initiating surveillance but were sensitive to the risk threshold for initiating treatment, NHS costs and treatment adherence. LIMITATIONS: Optimal monitoring intervals were based on IOP data. There were insufficient data to determine the optimal frequency of measurement of the visual field or optic nerve head for identification of glaucoma. The economic modelling took a 20-year time horizon which may be insufficient to capture long-term benefits. Sensitivity analyses may not fully capture the uncertainty surrounding parameter estimates. CONCLUSIONS: For confirmed ocular hypertension, findings suggest that there is no clear benefit from intensive monitoring. Consideration of the patient experience is important. A cohort study is recommended to provide data to refine the glaucoma risk prediction model, determine the optimum type and frequency of serial glaucoma tests and estimate costs and patient preferences for monitoring and treatment. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.
Citation
Burr , J M , Botello-Pinzon , P , Takwoingi , Y , Hernandez , R , Vazquez-Montes , M , Elders , A , Asaoka , R , Banister , K , van der Schoot , J , Fraser , C , King , A , Lemij , H , Sanders , R , Vernon , S , Tuulonen , A , Kotecha , A , Glasziou , P , Garway-Heath , D , Crabb , D , Vale , L , Azuara-Blanco , A , Perera , R , Ryan , M , Deeks , J & Cook , J 2012 , Surveillance for ocular hypertension : an evidence synthesis and economic evaluation . Health Technology Assessment , no. 29 , vol. 16 , The Stationery Office (HMSO) . https://doi.org/10.3310/hta16290
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3310/hta16290
ISSN
1366-5278
Type
Report
Rights
(c) Queen's Printer and Controller of HMSO 2012. This work was produced by Burr et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for Health.
Collections
  • University of St Andrews Research
URL
http://www.hta.ac.uk/1757
http://www.hta.ac.uk/fullmono/mon1629.pdf
URI
http://hdl.handle.net/10023/3962

Items in the St Andrews Research Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Advanced Search

Browse

All of RepositoryCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateNamesTitlesSubjectsClassificationTypeFunderThis CollectionBy Issue DateNamesTitlesSubjectsClassificationTypeFunder

My Account

Login

Open Access

To find out how you can benefit from open access to research, see our library web pages and Open Access blog. For open access help contact: openaccess@st-andrews.ac.uk.

Accessibility

Read our Accessibility statement.

How to submit research papers

The full text of research papers can be submitted to the repository via Pure, the University's research information system. For help see our guide: How to deposit in Pure.

Electronic thesis deposit

Help with deposit.

Repository help

For repository help contact: Digital-Repository@st-andrews.ac.uk.

Give Feedback

Cookie policy

This site may use cookies. Please see Terms and Conditions.

Usage statistics

COUNTER-compliant statistics on downloads from the repository are available from the IRUS-UK Service. Contact us for information.

© University of St Andrews Library

University of St Andrews is a charity registered in Scotland, No SC013532.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter