Economic evaluation of orthoptic screening: results of a field study in 121 German kindergartens.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to analyze the cost-effectiveness of an orthoptic screening program in kindergarten children. METHODS: An empiric cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted as part of a field study of orthoptic screening. Three-year-old children (n = 1180) in 121 German kindergartens were screened by orthoptists. The number of newly diagnosed cases of amblyopia and amblyogenic factors (target conditions) was used as the measure of effectiveness. The direct costs of orthoptic screening were calculated from a third-party-payer perspective based on comprehensive measurement of working hours and material costs. RESULTS: The average cost of a single orthoptic screening examination was 12.58 Euro. This amount consisted of labor costs (10.99 Euro) and costs of materials and traveling (1.60 Euro). With 9.9 children screened on average per kindergarten, average labor time was 279 minutes per kindergarten, or 28 minutes per child. It consisted of time for organization (46%), traveling (16%), preparing the examination site (10%), and the orthoptic examination itself (28%). The total cost of the screening program in all 121 kindergartens (including ophthalmic examination, if required) was 21,253 Euro. Twenty-three new cases of the target conditions were detected. The cost-effectiveness ratio was 924 Euro per detected case. Sensitivity analysis showed that the prevalence and the specificity of orthoptic screening had substantial influence on the cost-effectiveness ratio. CONCLUSIONS: The data on the cost-effectiveness of orthoptic screening in kindergarten may be used by such third-party payers as health insurance or public health services when deciding about organizing and financing preschool vision-screening programs.

Non-invasive phakometric measurement of corneal and crystalline lens alignment in human eyes.

We describe a non-invasive phakometric method for determining corneal axis rotation relative to the visual axis (beta) together with crystalline lens axis tilt (alpha) and decentration (d) relative to the corneal axis. This does not require corneal contact A-scan ultrasonography for the measurement of intraocular surface separations. Theoretical inherent errors of the method, evaluated by ray tracing through schematic eyes incorporating the full range of human ocular component variations, were found to be larger than the measurement errors (beta < 0.67 degrees , alpha < 0.72 degrees and d < 0.08 mm) observed in nine human eyes with known ocular component dimensions. Intersubject variations (mean +/- S.D.: beta = 6.2 +/- 3.4 degrees temporal, alpha = 0.2 +/- 1.8 degrees temporal and d = 0.1 +/- 0.1 mm temporal) and repeatability (1.96 x S.D. of difference between repeat readings: beta +/- 2.0 degrees , alpha +/- 1.8 degrees and d +/- 0.2 mm) were studied by measuring the left eyes of 45 subjects (aged 18-42 years, 29 females and 16 males, 15 Caucasians, 29 Indian Asians, one African, refractive error range -7.25 to +1.25 D mean spherical equivalent) on two occasions.

Cost-utility analysis of orthoptic screening in kindergarten: a Markov model based on data from Germany.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the long-term cost-effectiveness of a hypothetical screening program for untreated amblyopia in 3-year-old children conducted by orthoptists in all German kindergartens in the year 2000. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis was performed for which a decision tree was combined with a Markov model. Incremental costs and effects during the children's remaining lifetime were estimated. The model took into account the probability of treatment without screening, age-specific treatment success rates, costs of screening and treatment, as well as effects of unilateral and bilateral visual impairment caused by amblyopia and other eye diseases coming along later in life on quality of life (utility). Model parameter values were obtained from a field study of orthoptic screening in kindergarten, from the literature, and from expert interviews. Costs were estimated from a third-party payer perspective. Uncertainty was assessed by univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (Monte Carlo simulation). RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of orthoptic screening was 7397 Euro (euro) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) when costs and effects were discounted at 5%. In univariate sensitivity analysis, the ICER was sensitive to the uncertainty regarding the utility of unilateral visual impairment and to the discount rate for effects; besides uncertainty regarding the prevalence of untreated amblyopia, the odds ratio of success of treatment when started late, and the probability of treatment without screening had a noticeable but much smaller effect. Monte Carlo simulation yielded a 90% uncertainty interval for the ICER of 3452 euro/QALY to 72 637 euro/QALY; the probability of an ICER <25 000 euro/QALY was 84%. CONCLUSIONS: The ICER of orthoptic screening seems to fall within a range that warrants careful consideration by decision-makers. Much of the uncertainty in results comes from the uncertainty regarding the effect of amblyopia on quality of life. To reduce this uncertainty, the impact of amblyopia on utility should be investigated.

Economic evaluation of different methods of screening for amblyopia in kindergarten.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of 5 methods of screening for untreated amblyopia in kindergarten from a third-party-payer perspective: A) uncorrected monocular visual acuity testing with pass threshold > or =0.5 (20/40) and < or =1 line difference between eyes; B) same as A, but pass threshold > or =0.6 (20/32); C) same as A, plus cover tests and examination of eye motility and head posture; D) same as C, but pass threshold > or =0.6 (20/32); and E) refractive screening without cycloplegia using the Nikon Retinomax autorefractor. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was used with a time horizon until diagnostic examination. According to the model, all 3-year-old children were screened in kindergarten with 1 of the screening methods. Children with positive screening results were referred to an ophthalmologist for diagnostic examination. Children with inconclusive screening results were either referred to an ophthalmologist directly (option 1) or rescreened by the same method after 1 year and referred to an ophthalmologist if rescreening was positive or inconclusive (option 2). Screening test characteristics and costs were estimated on the basis of a field study in which 1180 3-year-old children were examined by orthoptists in 121 German kindergartens. RESULTS: Compared with methods A option 1 (A-1), B-1, C-1, C-2, E-1, and E-2, there was at least 1 other method that was both less costly and more effective. The average costs per detected case were lowest for method A-2 (878 Euro), followed by methods B-2 (886 Euro), D-2 (908 Euro), and D-1 (965 Euro). When these methods were compared with each other, the additional costs per extra case detected were 1058 Euro (B-2 vs A-2), 1359 Euro (D-2 vs B-2), and 13 448 Euro (D-1 vs D-2). CONCLUSIONS: Monocular visual acuity screening with rescreening of inconclusive results had a favorable cost-effectiveness. By adding additional test items, few more cases could be detected. Because of a great proportion of false-negative, false-positive, and inconclusive results, refractive screening was less effective with an unfavorable cost-effectiveness.

Phakometric measurement of ocular surface radii of curvature, axial separations and alignment in relaxed and accommodated human eyes.

Measurements (autokeratometry, A-scan ultrasonography and video ophthalmophakometry) of ocular surface radii, axial separations and alignment were made in the horizontal meridian of nine emmetropes (aged 20-38 years) with relaxed (cycloplegia) and active accommodation (mean +/- 95% confidence interval: 3.7 +/- 1.1 D). The anterior chamber depth (-1.5 +/- 0.3 D) and both crystalline lens surfaces (front 3.1 +/- 0.8 D; rear 2.1 +/- 0.6 D) contributed to dioptric vergence changes that accompany accommodation. Accommodation did not alter ocular surface alignment. Ocular misalignment in relaxed eyes is mainly because of eye rotation (5.7 +/- 1.6 degrees temporally) with small amounts of lens tilt (0.2 +/- 0.8 degrees temporally) and decentration (0.1 +/- 0.1 mm nasally) but these results must be viewed with caution as we did not account for corneal asymmetry. Comparison of calculated and empirically derived coefficients (upon which ocular surface alignment calculations depend) revealed that negligible inherent errors arose from neglect of ocular surface asphericity, lens gradient refractive index properties, surface astigmatism, effects of pupil size and centration, assumed eye rotation axis position and use of linear equations for analysing Purkinje image shifts.

[Resource utilisation and cost of amblyopia treatment]. / Ressourcenverbrauch und Kosten der Amblyopiebehandlung.

BACKGROUND: The cost-effectiveness of screening for amblyopia is a controversial issue of international debate. The purpose of this study was to estimate the cost of amblyopia treatment to be used as a component for modelling the cost-effectiveness of prevention programmes. Cost was calculated from the perspective of the German social health insurance in the year 2002. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A standardised detailed survey was conducted in writing among 13 experienced experts in amblyopia treatment from various offices and strabismological units in Germany. Average volumes of treatment items were estimated for a maximum treatment period of nine years. Cost was calculated using administrative prices (based on the social health insurance's uniform fee schedule for physician services and reference prices for therapeutic aids) and market prices. RESULTS: The questionnaires were fully completed by 12 of the 13 experts. The mean total cost of treatment was estimated at 2.472 Euro (95 %-CI: 1.171 - 3.774) for strabismic amblyopia and 2.051 Euro (95 %-CI: 426 - 3.675) for amblyopia of refractive origin. About 70 % of the total cost was caused by the therapeutic aids (e. g. glasses, patches). The price of the patches had a marked impact on the total treatment cost. CONCLUSIONS: The results may be used for modelling the cost-effectiveness of screening programmes for the prevention of amblyopia.