Economic Modelling of Myopia Management: A Systematic Literature Review
Author(s)
Thom de Milliano, MSc1, Kun Shi-van Wielink, MSc, PhD1, Jieyi Li, MSc1, Frederic Ernst, MBA2, Christina Lymperopoulou, MSc, MPH3, Prashanth Veeranki, PharmD4, Nagarjuna Mulkalapalli, MSc5, Ravali Pagidigummula, BPharm5, Saskia van Dijk, .6.
1Santen Pharmaceutical, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2Santen Pharmaceutical, Munich, Germany, 3IQVIA, Athens, Greece, 4IQVIA, Krishna, India, 5IQVIA, Hyderabad, India, 6IQVIA, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
1Santen Pharmaceutical, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2Santen Pharmaceutical, Munich, Germany, 3IQVIA, Athens, Greece, 4IQVIA, Krishna, India, 5IQVIA, Hyderabad, India, 6IQVIA, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
OBJECTIVES: Several new myopia management strategies are being developed globally. This systematic literature review (SLR) evaluated the economic models developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of various myopia interventions.
METHODS: We conducted the search of Embase®, MEDLINE®, CENTRAL®, and EconLit® databases from 2009-April 2024, supplemented by key conference proceedings and trial registries.
RESULTS: Twelve economic modelling studies were identified. The economic models varied in their approaches and perspectives:
CONCLUSIONS: This SLR highlighted the diverse economic modelling approaches used to assess myopia management strategies, predominantly evaluated in Asian populations. With the increasing prevalence of myopia, its geographic spread and long-term clinical manifestations, there is a need for more comprehensive framework for economic evaluations in myopia.
METHODS: We conducted the search of Embase®, MEDLINE®, CENTRAL®, and EconLit® databases from 2009-April 2024, supplemented by key conference proceedings and trial registries.
RESULTS: Twelve economic modelling studies were identified. The economic models varied in their approaches and perspectives:
- Geographic Coverage: Studies were conducted in China, Hong Kong, Spain, New Zealand, and the UK.
- Modelling Approaches: Predominantly Markov models, with some decision tree models.
- Perspectives: Societal, payer, healthcare provider, and combined perspectives.
- Time Horizons: Ranged from 5 years to lifetime.
- Outcomes: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, quality-adjusted life years and costs.
- Atropine formulations: 0.05% was the most cost-effective Atropine concentration for controlling myopia progression compared to 0.025% and 0.01% in children in Hong Kong.
- Refractive Surgery: Small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) was the most cost-effective option compared to femtosecond laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (FS-LASIK) and photorefractive keratectomy in Spain.
- Anti-VEGF Treatments: Ranibizumab was more cost-effective than verteporfin photodynamic therapy (vPDT) for treating myopic choroidal neovascularisation (mCNV) in the UK and China. Conbercept was found to be slightly more cost-effective than ranibizumab in China.
- Defocus incorporated multiple segments lenses were cost-effective compared to no myopia control in Hong Kong.
- Digital Myopia Management: Digital comprehensive myopia prevention and control strategies were potentially cost-effective in China.
CONCLUSIONS: This SLR highlighted the diverse economic modelling approaches used to assess myopia management strategies, predominantly evaluated in Asian populations. With the increasing prevalence of myopia, its geographic spread and long-term clinical manifestations, there is a need for more comprehensive framework for economic evaluations in myopia.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2025-05, ISPOR 2025, Montréal, Quebec, CA
Value in Health, Volume 28, Issue S1
Code
EPH188
Topic
Epidemiology & Public Health
Topic Subcategory
Public Health
Disease
SDC: Pediatrics, SDC: Sensory System Disorders (Ear, Eye, Dental, Skin)