Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Economic Implications of Glaucoma

A Literature Review

  • Review Article
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Glaucoma is a common ophthalmic condition, often associated with elevated intraocular pressure (IOP). It affects >2 million people in the US, and the incidence is expected to exceed 3 million by 2020. However, relatively little is known about the cost of glaucoma compared with costs for other eye conditions. This comprehensive report reviews published literature on costs and cost effectiveness of treatments for glaucoma.

Cost-of-illness studies in glaucoma focus on direct medical costs and generally exclude indirect costs. In general, increased costs are associated with increased severity or lack of control over IOP and the distribution of costs (e.g. medication vs procedures) varies with severity. A large number of studies have evaluated the cost of glaucoma medications, assessing the number of drops per bottle and associated cost per drop or per treatment dose. These studies have limited usefulness as they generally evaluate unit medication costs without including differential effectiveness or adverse effects associated with various therapies, and thus provide only one component of real-world costs for glaucoma. Broader comparative cost studies, mainly adopting a cost-minimisation approach, have evaluated the impact of differing treatments and management strategies on all types of medical care resource utilisation and associated costs, but a variety of metrics for success makes interpretation challenging. Studies have generally found ß2-adrenoceptor antagonists to be associated with greater healthcare costs than newer therapies. Among newer treatments such as prostaglandin analogues, no specific treatment has demonstrated a clear cost advantage over other treatments.

A number of studies have modelled hypothetical cohorts of glaucoma patients through courses of therapy, projecting costs, outcomes and cost effectiveness. A majority of these cost-effectiveness models compare one of the newer prostaglandin analogues with older medications or with one another. Existing studies suggest that bimatoprost may be more cost effective than other agents. However, the effectiveness outcomes used in these studies vary, including achieving IOP thresholds, IOP-controlled days, percent reduction in IOP and QALYs. Methods used to determine costs also vary substantially between studies.

Future evaluations of the burden of glaucoma need to consider the issues of comparability between, and generalisability of, study results. Differences in methods have created barriers to understanding the cost of glaucoma and comparing costs or cost effectiveness between studies. Furthermore, future studies should also consider direct costs of glaucoma generally not covered by health insurance as well as indirect costs of glaucoma. As new screening technologies for early detection of individuals at elevated risk of glaucoma are now in use, more complete estimates of the cost of glaucoma are critical for issues of resource allocation and health policy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Table I
Table II

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Friedman DS, Wolfs RC, O’Colmain BJ, et al. Prevalence of open-angle glaucoma among adults in the United States. Arch Ophthalmol 2004 Apr; 122 (4): 532–538

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. American Academy of Ophthalmology. Preferred practice pattern: primary open-angle glaucoma. Limited revision. San Francisco (CA): American Academy of Ophthalmology, 2003

    Google Scholar 

  3. Tielsch JM, Sommer A, Katz J, et al. Racial variations in the prevalence of primary open-angle glaucoma: the Baltimore Eye Survey. JAMA 1991 Jul 17; 266 (3): 369–374

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Quigley HA, West SK, Rodriguez J, et al. The prevalence of glaucoma in a population-based study of Hispanic subjects: Proyecto VER. Arch Ophthalmol 2001 Dec; 119 (12): 1819–1826

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Varma R, Ying-Lai M, Francis BA, et al. Prevalence of open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension in Latinos: the Los Angeles Latino Eye Study. Ophthalmology 2004 Aug; 111 (8): 1439–1448

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Klein BE, Klein R, Sponsel WE, et al. Prevalence of glaucoma: the Beaver Dam Eye Study. Ophthalmology 1992 Oct; 99 (10): 1499–1504

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Duggal P, Klein AP, Lee KE, et al. A genetic contribution to intraocular pressure: the Beaver Dam Eye Study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2005 Feb; 46 (2): 555–560

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. American Academy of Ophthalmology. Preferred practice pattern: primary open-angle glaucoma suspect. San Francisco (CA): American Academy of Ophthalmology, 2005

    Google Scholar 

  9. American Academy of Ophthalmology. Preferred practice pattern: primary angle closure glaucoma. Limited revision. San Francisco (CA): American Academy of Ophthalmology, 2005

    Google Scholar 

  10. Collaborative Normal-Tension Glaucoma Study Group. The effectiveness of intraocular pressure reduction in the treatment of normal-tension glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 1998 Oct; 126 (4): 498–505

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Lichter PR, Musch DC, Gillespie BW, et al. Interim clinical outcomes in the Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study comparing initial treatment randomized to medications or surgery. Ophthalmology 2001 Nov; 108 (11): 1943–1953

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. The Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study (AGIS): 7. The relationship between control of intraocular pressure and visual field deterioration: the AGIS Investigators. Am J Ophthalmol 2000 Oct; 130 (4): 429–40

  13. Baltussen RM, Sylla M, Frick KD, et al. Cost-effectiveness of trachoma control in seven world regions. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 2005 Apr; 12 (2): 91–101

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Schmier JK, Halpern MT, Covert DW, et al. Impact of visual impairment on use of caregiving by individuals with age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Retina 2006; 26 (9): 1056–1062

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Schmier JK, Jones ML, Halpern MT. The burden of age-related macular degeneration. Pharmacoeconomics 2006; 24 (4): 319–334

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Sharma S, Hollands H, Brown GC, et al. The cost-effectiveness of early vitrectomy for the treatment of vitreous hemorrhage in diabetic retinopathy. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2001 Jun; 12 (3): 230–234

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Vijan S, Hofer TP, Hayward RA. Cost-utility analysis of screening intervals for diabetic retinopathy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. JAMA 2000 Feb 16; 283 (7): 889–896

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Whited JD, Datta SK, Aiello LM, et al. A modeled economic analysis of a digital teleophthalmology system as used by three federal healthcare agencies for detecting proliferative diabetic retinopathy. Telemed J E Health 2005 Dec; 11 (6): 641–651

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lee PP, Walt JG, Doyle JJ, et al. A multicenter, retrospective pilot study of resource use and costs associated with severity of disease in glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 2006; 124 (1): 12–19

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Denis P, Lafuma A, Berdeaux G. Medical predictive factors of glaucoma treatment costs. J Glaucoma 2004 Aug; 13 (4): 283–290

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Calissendorff BM. Costs of medical and surgical treatment of glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 2001 Jun; 79 (3): 286–288

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Ellwein LB, Urato CJ. Use of eye care and associated charges among the Medicare population: 1991–1998. Arch Ophthalmol 2002 Jun; 120 (6): 804–811

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Iskedjian M, Walker J, Vicente C, et al. Cost of glaucoma in Canada: analyses based on visual field and physician’s assessment. J Glaucoma 2003 Dec; 12 (6): 456–462

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lindblom B, Nordmann JP, Sellem E, et al. A multicentre, retrospective study of resource utilization and costs associated with glaucoma management in France and Sweden. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 2005; 82 (1): 73–83

    Google Scholar 

  25. Oostenbrink JB, Rutten-van Molken MP, Opdenoordt TS. The treatment of newly diagnosed patients with glaucoma or with ocular hypertension in The Netherlands: an observational study of costs and initial treatment success based on retrospective chart review. Doc Ophthalmol 1999; 98 (3): 285–299

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Oostenbrink JB, Rutten-van Molken MP, Sluyter-Opdenoordt TS. Resource use and costs of patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension: a one-year study based on retrospective chart review in the Netherlands. J Glaucoma 2001 Jun; 10 (3): 184–191

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Traverso CE, Walt JG, Kelly SP, et al. Direct costs of glaucoma and severity of the disease: a multinational long term study of resource utilisation in Europe. Br J Ophthalmol 2005 Oct; 89 (10): 1245–1249

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Vicente C, Walker J, Buys Y, et al. Association between mean intraocular pressure, disease stability and cost of treating glaucoma in Canada. Curr Med Res Opin 2004 Aug; 20 (8): 1245–1251

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Wang JC, Chew PT. What is the direct cost of treatment of acute primary angle closure glaucoma? The Singapore model. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol 2004 Dec; 32 (6): 578–583

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Abelson MB, Netland PA, Chapin MJ. Switching patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension from dual therapy to monotherapy: evaluation of brimonidine as a model. Adv Ther 2001 Nov-Dec; 18 (6): 282–297

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Ainsworth JR, Jay JL. Cost analysis of early trabeculectomy versus conventional management in primary open angle glaucoma. Eye 1991; 5 (Pt 3): 322–328

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Bernard LM, Althin R, Dhawan R, et al. Clinical and economic impacts of latanoprost 0.005% in first-line treatment of open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension in France. Eur J Ophthalmol 2003 Jul; 13 Suppl. 4: S30–S43

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Christensen TL, Poulsen PB, Holmstrom S, et al. A Markov modelled pharmacoeconomic analysis of bimatoprost 0.03% in the treatment of glaucoma as an alternative to filtration surgery in Italy. Curr Med Res Opin 2005 Nov; 21 (11): 1837–1844

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Coast J, Spencer IC, Smith L, et al. Comparing costs of monitoring glaucoma patients: hospital ophthalmologists versus community optometrists. J Health Serv Res Policy 1997 Jan; 2 (1): 19–25

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Day DG, Schacknow PN, Sharpe ED, et al. A persistency and economic analysis of latanoprost, bimatoprost, or beta-block-ers in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther 2004 Oct; 20 (5): 383–392

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Halpern MT, Covert DW, Robin AL. Projected impact of travoprost versus both timolol and latanoprost on visual field deficit progression and costs among black glaucoma subjects. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 2002; 100: 109–17–109; discussion 117–8

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Kobelt G, Jonsson L. Modeling cost of treatment with new topical treatments for glaucoma: results from France and the United Kingdom. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1999 Winter; 15 (1): 207–219

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Kobelt G, Jonsson L, Gerdtham U, et al. Direct costs of glaucoma management following initiation of medical therapy: a simulation model based on an observational study of glaucoma treatment in Germany. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 1998 Nov; 236 (11): 811–821

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Kobelt-Nguyen G, Gerdtham UG, Alm A. Costs of treating primary open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension: a retrospective, observational two-year chart review of newly diagnosed patients in Sweden and the United States. J Glaucoma 1998 Apr; 7 (2): 95–104

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Marchetti A, Magar R, An P, et al. Clinical and economic impact of new trends in glaucoma treatment. MedGenMed 2001 Jul 26; 3 (4): 6

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Noecker RJ, Walt JG. Cost-effectiveness of monotherapy treatment of glaucoma and ocular hypertension with the lipid class of medications. Am J Ophthalmol 2006 Jan; 141 (1 Suppl.): 15–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Rocchi A, Tingey D. Economic evaluation of dorzolamide vs. pilocarpine for primary open-angle glaucoma. Can J Ophthalmol 1997 Oct; 32 (6): 414–418

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Rouland JF, Le Pen C. Naturalistic, prospective study of glaucoma and ocular hypertension treatment in France: strategies, clinical outcomes, and costs at 1 year. Eur J Ophthalmol 2003 Jul; 13 Suppl. 4: S5–S20

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Rouland JF, Le Pen C, Benhaddi H, et al. Naturalistic, prospective study of glaucoma and ocular hypertension treatment in France: strategies, clinical outcomes, and costs at 2 years. Eur J Ophthalmol 2005 Sep-Oct; 15 (5): 562–580

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Stewart WC, Leech J, Sharpe ED, et al. An economic analysis of switching to latanoprost from a beta-blocker or adding brimonidine or latanoprost to a beta-blocker in open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Am J Manag Care 2002 Aug; 8 (10 Suppl.): S240–S248

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Tuil E, Hommer AB, Poulsen PB, et al. The cost-effectiveness of bimatoprost 0.03% in the treatment of glaucoma in adult patients: a European perspective. Int J Clin Pract 2005 Sep; 59 (9): 1011–1016

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Walt JG, Lee JT. A cost-effectiveness comparison of bimatoprost versus latanoprost in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Surv Ophthalmol 2004 Mar; 49 Suppl. 1: S36–S44

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Calissendorff BM. Consumption of glaucoma medication. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 2001 Feb; 79 (1): 2–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. De Natale R, Draghi E, Dorigo MT. How prostaglandins have changed the medical approach to glaucoma and its costs: an observational study of 2228 patients treated with glaucoma medications. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 2004 Aug; 82 (4): 393–396

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Doyle JW, Smith MF, Tierney JW Jr. Glaucoma medical treatment: 2002. Does yearly cost now equal the year? Optom Vis Sci 2002 Aug; 79 (8): 489–492

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Fiscella RG, Geller JL, Gryz LL, et al. Cost considerations of medical therapy for glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 1999 Oct; 128 (4): 426–433

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Fiscella RG, Green A, Patuszynski DH, et al. Medical therapy cost considerations for glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 2003 Jul; 136 (1): 18–25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Gelvin JB, Goen TM. Dosage cost analysis in glaucoma management. J Am Optom Assoc 1989 Oct; 60 (10): 768–770

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Ikeda H, Tsukamoto H, Sawa A, et al. Comparison of annual cost between brand and generic ocular beta-adrenergic block-ers. Yakugaku Zasshi 2005 May; 125 (5): 463–467

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Kooner KS, Zimmerman TJ. The cost of antiglaucoma medications. Ann Ophthalmol 1987 Sep; 19 (9): 327–328

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Mick AB, Gonzalez S, Dunbar MT, et al. A cost analysis of the prostaglandin analogs. Optometry 2002 Oct; 73 (10): 614–619

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Stewart WC, Sine C, Cate E, et al. Daily cost of beta-adrenergic blocker therapy. Arch Ophthalmol. 1997 Jul; 115 (7): 853–856

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Vold SD, Wiggins DA, Jackimiec J. Cost analysis of glaucoma medications. J Glaucoma 2000 Apr; 9 (2): 150–153

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Vold SD, Riggs WL, Jackimiec J. Cost analysis of glaucoma medications: a 3-year review. J Glaucoma 2002 Aug; 11 (4): 354–358

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Jampel HD, Schwartz GF, Robin AL, et al. Patient preferences for eye drop characteristics: a willingness-to-pay analysis. Arch Ophthalmol 2003 Apr; 121 (4): 540–546

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Jampel HD, Parekh P, Johnson E, et al. Preferences for eye drop characteristics among glaucoma specialists: a willingness-to-pay analysis. J Glaucoma 2005 Apr; 14 (2): 151–156

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Lafuma A, Brezin A, Lopatriello S, et al. Evaluation of nonmedical costs associated with visual impairment in four European countries: France, Italy, Germany and the UK. Pharmacoeconomics 2006; 24 (2): 193–205

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Meads C, Hyde C. How much is the cost of visual impairment. Pharmacoeconomics 2006; 24 (2): 207–209

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Spaeth G, Walt J, Keener J. Evaluation of quality of life for patients with glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 2006 Jan; 141 (1 Suppl.): 3–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Rouland JF, Berdeaux G, Lafuma A. The economic burden of glaucoma and ocular hypertension: implications for patient management: a review. Drugs Aging 2005; 22 (4): 315–321

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Ramsey S, Willke R, Briggs A, et al. Good research practices for cost-effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials: the ISPOR RCT-CEA Task Force report. Value Health 2005 Sep-Oct; 8 (5): 521–533

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Weinstein MC, O’Brien B, Hornberger J, et al. Principles of good practice for decision analytic modeling in health-care evaluation: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices. Modeling studies. Value Health 2003 Jan-Feb; 6 (1): 9–17

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Halpern MT, Luce BR, Brown RE, et al. Health and economic outcomes modeling practices: a suggested framework. Value Health 1998 Jul-Aug; 1 (2): 131–147

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Bell CM, Urbach DR, Ray JG, et al. Bias in published cost effectiveness studies: systematic review. BMJ 2006 Mar 25; 332 (7543): 699–703

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Costagliola C, Parmeggiani F, Sebastiani A. Assessing the cost-effectiveness of switching from a beta-blocker to latanoprost in the treatment of ocular hypertension. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2003 Oct; 4 (10): 1775–1788

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Boivin JF, McGregor M, Archer C. Cost effectiveness of screening for primary open angle glaucoma. J Med Screen 1996; 3 (3): 154–163

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Eddy DM, Sanders LE, Eddy JF. The value of screening for glaucoma with tonometry. Surv Ophthalmol 1983 Nov-Dec; 28 (3): 194–205

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Sheldrick JH, Sharp AJ. Glaucoma screening clinic in general practice: prevalence of occult disease, and resource implications. Br J Gen Pract 1994 Dec; 44 (389): 561–565

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Gottlieb LK, Schwartz B, Pauker SG. Glaucoma screening: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Surv Ophthalmol 1983 Nov–Dec; 28 (3): 206–226

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Jones SJ, Vernon SA, Cater L, et al. Costing a community based screening programme for the detection of glaucoma. Eye 1990; 4 (Pt 1): 98–102

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Harasymowycz P, Kamdeu Fansi A, Papamatheakis D. Screening for primary open-angle glaucoma in the developed world: are we there yet? Can J Ophthalmol 2005 Aug; 40 (4): 477–486

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Kobelt G. Health economics, economic evaluation, and glaucoma. J Glaucoma 2002 Dec; 11 (6): 53–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

No funding was received for the preparation of this review and the authors are not currently receiving any funding directly related to the contents of the review.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Exponent, 1800 Diagonal Road, Suite 300, Alexandria, Virginia, 22314, USA

    Jordana K. Schmier, Michael T. Halpern & Mechelle L. Jones

Authors
  1. Jordana K. Schmier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael T. Halpern
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mechelle L. Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jordana K. Schmier.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schmier, J.K., Halpern, M.T. & Jones, M.L. The Economic Implications of Glaucoma. Pharmacoeconomics 25, 287–308 (2007). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200725040-00003

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200725040-00003

Keywords

Search

Navigation