Advertisement

PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 24, Issue 2, pp 207–209 | Cite as

How Much is the Cost of Visual Impairment

Caveat Emptor
  • Catherine Meads
  • Chris Hyde
Commentary

Lafuma et al.’s[1] paper in this issue of PharmacoEconomics on the cost of visual impairment is the latest in a series of cost estimates carried out recently. The paper is clearly of great potential value in attempting to derive and compare non-medical costs of visual impairment across four major European countries: France, Italy, Germany and the UK. This, however, assumes that the costs are generally accurate, and we explore this in the context of the UK in particular.

In this respect, our National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) technology appraisal report on photodynamic therapy for age-related macular degeneration[2] provides a starting point. In order to assess verteporfin (Visudyne®,1Novartis Ophthalmics AG, Switzerland), the then only currently licensed photodynamic therapy agent for this indication, it was considered necessary to assess the costs averted should blindness be prevented. Since there were no primary studies in the UK that followed a cohort of...

Keywords

Visual Impairment Photodynamic Therapy Cost Estimate Verteporfin Technology Appraisal 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this commentary. The authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this commentary.

References

  1. 1.
    Lafuma A, Brézin 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): 193–205PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Meads C, Salas C, Roberts T, et al. Clinical effectiveness and cost utility of photodynamic therapy for wet age-related macular degeneration: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2003; 7 (9): 1–98Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wright SE, Keeffe JE, Thies LS. Direct costs of blindness in Australia. Clin Experiment Ophthalrnol 2000; 28: 140–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bonastre J, Le Pen C, Soubrane G, et al. The burden of agerelated macular degeneration. Pharmacoeconomics 2003; 21 (3), 181–190PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ethical Strategies Ltd. The costs of blindness: an analysis of the costs of visual impairment and blindness in the United Kingdom. Reading: Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, 2003Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Department of Health. Registered blind and partially sighted people year ending 31 March 2003. London: Office for National Statistics, 2003Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Miners AH, Garau M, Fidan D, et al. Comparing estimates of cost effectiveness submitted to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) by different organisations: retrospective study. BMJ 2005; 330 (7482): 65–68PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Burton B, Rowell A. Unhealthy spin. BMJ 2003; 326: 1205–1207PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Alcon Incorporated. Protocol C-02-60 information for potential participants about a phase III clinical trial to evaluate an investigational treatment for stopping the progression of dry AMD to wet AMD [online]. Available from URL: http://www.alconlabs.comlus/eo/clinicalstudies/ [Accessed 2005 Feb 21]
  10. 10.
    National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guide to the technology appraisal process. London: NICE, 2004Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guidance on the use of photodynamic therapy for age-related macular degeneration. London: NICE, 2004Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hill R, Bagust A, Bakhai A, et al. Coronary artery stents: a rapid systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2004; 8 (35): 1–242Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Meads C, Hyde C. What is the cost of blindness? Br J Ophthalmol 2003; 87: 1201–1204PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Raftery J. NICE: faster access to modern treatments? Analysis of guidance on health technologies. BMJ 2001; 323: 1300–1303PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Burls A, Sandercock J. How to make a compelling submission to NICE: tips for sponsoring organisations. BMJ 2003; 327: 1446–1448PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Public Health and EpidemiologyUniversity of BirminghamEdgbaston, BirminghamEngland

Personalised recommendations