MedElevator
Войти в исследования Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2022
Cost Burden of Endothelial Keratoplasty in Fuchs Endothelial Dystrophy: Real-World Analysis of a Commercially Insured US Population (2014-2019).
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Dhaliwal Deepinder K, Chirikov Viktor, Schmier Jordana, Rege Sanika, Newton Schalon
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To assess the incremental burden of corneal transplant surgery for US commercially insured patients with Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy (FECD) treated with endothelial keratoplasty (EK) compared to controls.
METHODS: The study design was retrospective cohort using IBM® MarketScan® claims (January 2014-September 2019) and included EK-treated (N=1562) and control patients (N=23,485) having ≥12 months' enrollment before and after diagnosis, who were subsequently matched on select characteristics. The index date was the beginning of the pre-operative period (3 months before EK); synthetic EK index was assigned for controls. All-cause, eye-disease, and complication-related healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs were compared up to 36 months post index. For a small subset of patients, patient data were linked to the Health and Productivity Management supplemental database, which integrates data on productivity loss and disability payments.
RESULTS: Matched cohorts included 804 EK-treated and 1453 controls with average age 65.7 years, 1383 (61%) female. Over 12 months of follow-up, all-cause ($41,199 vs $20,222, p<0.001) and eye-disease related costs ($22,951 vs $1389, p<0.001) were higher among EK-treated patients than controls. The cost differential increased additionally by $1000-$2000 per annum by 36 months of follow-up. While balanced at baseline, over follow-up EK-treated patients had higher prevalence of glaucoma, elevated intraocular pressure, cataract, cataract surgery, diagnosis of cornea transplant rejection, retinal edema. By 36 month of follow-up, EK-treated patients had 9 more short-term disability days, resulting in $2992 additional burden of disability payments.
CONCLUSION: This study found a higher cost burden among FECD patients receiving EK treatment versus those who did not. With a shift in management of FECD, cost burden estimates generated in this study could serve as an important benchmark for future studies.
METHODS: The study design was retrospective cohort using IBM® MarketScan® claims (January 2014-September 2019) and included EK-treated (N=1562) and control patients (N=23,485) having ≥12 months' enrollment before and after diagnosis, who were subsequently matched on select characteristics. The index date was the beginning of the pre-operative period (3 months before EK); synthetic EK index was assigned for controls. All-cause, eye-disease, and complication-related healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs were compared up to 36 months post index. For a small subset of patients, patient data were linked to the Health and Productivity Management supplemental database, which integrates data on productivity loss and disability payments.
RESULTS: Matched cohorts included 804 EK-treated and 1453 controls with average age 65.7 years, 1383 (61%) female. Over 12 months of follow-up, all-cause ($41,199 vs $20,222, p<0.001) and eye-disease related costs ($22,951 vs $1389, p<0.001) were higher among EK-treated patients than controls. The cost differential increased additionally by $1000-$2000 per annum by 36 months of follow-up. While balanced at baseline, over follow-up EK-treated patients had higher prevalence of glaucoma, elevated intraocular pressure, cataract, cataract surgery, diagnosis of cornea transplant rejection, retinal edema. By 36 month of follow-up, EK-treated patients had 9 more short-term disability days, resulting in $2992 additional burden of disability payments.
CONCLUSION: This study found a higher cost burden among FECD patients receiving EK treatment versus those who did not. With a shift in management of FECD, cost burden estimates generated in this study could serve as an important benchmark for future studies.