Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

© Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. Objective: To assess the efficiency of alternative monitoring services for people with ocular hypertension (OHT), a glaucoma risk factor. Design: Discrete event simulation model comparing five alternative care pathways: treatment at OHT diagnosis with minimal monitoring; biennial monitoring (primary and secondary care) with treatment if baseline predicted 5-year glaucoma risk is ≥6%; monitoring and treatment aligned to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) glaucoma guidance (conservative and intensive). Setting: UK health services perspective. Participants: Simulated cohort of 10 000 adults with OHT (mean intraocular pressure (IOP) 24.9 mm Hg (SD 2.4). Main outcome measures: Costs, glaucoma detected, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Results: Treating at diagnosis was the least costly and least effective in avoiding glaucoma and progression. Intensive monitoring following NICE guidance was the most costly and effective. However, considering a wider cost-utility perspective, biennial monitoring was less costly and provided more QALYs than NICE pathways, but was unlikely to be cost-effective compared with treating at diagnosis (£86 717 per additional QALY gained). The findings were robust to risk thresholds for initiating monitoring but were sensitive to treatment threshold, National Health Service costs and treatment adherence. Conclusions: For confirmed OHT, glaucoma monitoring more frequently than every 2 years is unlikely to be efficient. Primary treatment and minimal monitoring (assessing treatment responsiveness (IOP)) could be considered; however, further data to refine glaucoma risk prediction models and value patient preferences for treatment are needed. Consideration to innovative and affordable service redesign focused on treatment responsiveness rather than more glaucoma testing is recommended.

Original publication

DOI

10.1136/bjophthalmol-2015-306757

Type

Journal article

Journal

British Journal of Ophthalmology

Publication Date

01/09/2016

Volume

100

Pages

1263 - 1268