Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

„Value-based medicine“ bei Glaukom

Value-based medicine for glaucoma

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Der Ophthalmologe Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Die Anwendung von „value-based medicine“ (VBM) bei Glaukom setzt valide Daten zur Einschränkung der Lebensqualität bei der Erkrankung voraus. Zahlreiche Instrumente zur Messung der Lebensqualität sind bereits eingesetzt worden, wobei speziell der Verlust des peripheren Sehens gut abgebildet werden muss. Integriert man die monetären Aufwendungen in den Erhalt der Lebensqualität, so lassen sich Kosten-Nutzwert-Analysen berechnen. So kann beispielsweise beim Glaukomscreening oder bei der Behandlung der okulären Hypertension eine Aussage getroffen werden, bei welchen Bevölkerungsgruppen bzw. Patienten eine gute Kosteneffizienz besteht.

Abstract

The application of value-based medicine (VBM) tenets in the area of glaucoma research requires valid and reliable data concerning the quality of life with glaucoma. A multitude of instruments for measuring quality of life of patients with glaucoma have been employed in the past. Any instrument used would need to capture peripheral vision loss and its influence on patient-reported quality of life as this is one of the hallmarks of this disease. Cost-utility analyses can then be based on the reported quality of life and the cost of glaucoma therapy. Several cost-utility analyses have been applied in the field of glaucoma screening as well as treating ocular hypertension and based on this a recommendation regarding population subgroups which can be treated cost efficiently can be made.

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

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3
Abb. 4

Literatur

  1. Submacular Surgery Trials Research Group (2007) Evaluation of minimum clinically meaningful changes in scores on the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ) SST Report Number 19. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 14:205–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Brown MM, Brown GC, Sharma S, Landy J (2003) Health care economic analyses and value-based medicine. Surv Ophthalmol 48:204–223

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Brown MM, Brown GC, Sharma S et al (2001) A utility analysis correlation with visual acuity: methodologies and vision in the better and poorer eyes. Int Ophthalmol 24:123–127

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Busbee BG, Brown MM, Brown GC, Sharma S (2003) Cost-utility analysis of cataract surgery in the second eye. Ophthalmology 110:2310–2317

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Chauhan BC, Garway-Heath DF, Goni FJ et al (2008) Practical recommendations for measuring rates of visual field change in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 92:569–573

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Goldberg I, Clement CI, Chiang TH et al (2009) Assessing quality of life in patients with glaucoma using the Glaucoma Quality of Life-15 (GQL-15) questionnaire. J Glaucoma 18:6–12

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gordon MO, Beiser JA, Brandt JD et al (2002) The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study: baseline factors that predict the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 120:714–720; discussion 829–730

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Gupta V, Srinivasan G, Mei SS et al (2005) Utility values among glaucoma patients: an impact on the quality of life. Br J Ophthalmol 89:1241–1244

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hernandez RA, Burr JM, Vale LD (2008) Economic evaluation of screening for open-angle glaucoma. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 24:203–211

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hirneiss C, Neubauer AS, Tribus C, Kampik A (2006) Value-based medicine in ophthalmology. Ophthalmologe 103:493–500

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hirneiss C, Neubauer AS, Welge-Lussen U et al (2003) Measuring patient’s quality of life in ophthalmology. Ophthalmologe 100:1091–1097

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hirneiss C, Niedermaier A, Kernt M et al (2009) Health-economic aspects of glaucoma screening. Ophthalmologe

  13. Hirth RA, Chernew ME, Miller E et al (2000) Willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life year: in search of a standard. Med Decis Making 20:332–342

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hodapp EPR, Anderson DR (1993) Clinical decisions in glaucoma. Mosby, St. Louis

  15. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH (1989) Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 10:407–415

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Jampel HD, Frick KD, Janz NK et al (2007) Depression and mood indicators in newly diagnosed glaucoma patients. Am J Ophthalmol 144:238–244

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Janz NK, Wren PA, Lichter PR et al (2001) The Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study: interim quality of life findings after initial medical or surgical treatment of glaucoma. Ophthalmology 108:1954–1965

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kobelt G, Jonsson B, Bergstrom A et al (2006) Cost-effectiveness analysis in glaucoma: what drives utility? Results from a pilot study in Sweden. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 84:363–371

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kvien TK, Heiberg T, Hagen KB (2007) Minimal clinically important improvement/difference (MCII/MCID) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS): what do these concepts mean? Ann Rheum Dis 66(Suppl 3):iii40–iii41

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kymes SM, Kass MA, Anderson DR et al (2006) Management of ocular hypertension: a cost-effectiveness approach from the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study. Am J Ophthalmol 141:997–1008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Lee BS, Kymes SM, Nease RF Jr et al (2007) The impact of anchor point on utilities for 5 common ophthalmic diseases. Ophthalmology

  22. Mangione CM, Lee PP, Gutierrez PR et al (2001) Development of the 25-item national eye institute visual function questionnaire. Arch Ophthalmol 119:1050–1058

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. McKean-Cowdin R, Wang Y, Wu J et al (2007) Impact of Visual Field Loss on Health-Related Quality of Life in Glaucoma The Los Angeles Latino Eye Study. Ophthalmology

  24. Nelson P, Aspinall P, Papasouliotis O et al (2003) Quality of life in glaucoma and its relationship with visual function. J Glaucoma 12:139–150

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Saw SM, Gazzard G, Au Eong KG et al (2005) Utility values in Singapore Chinese adults with primary open-angle and primary angle-closure glaucoma. J Glaucoma 14:455–462

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Severn P, Fraser S, Finch T, May C (2008) Which quality of life score is best for glaucoma patients and why? BMC Ophthalmol 8:2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Skalicky S, Goldberg I (2008) Depression and quality of life in patients with glaucoma: a cross-sectional analysis using the Geriatric Depression Scale-15, assessment of function related to vision, and the Glaucoma Quality of Life-15. J Glaucoma 17:546–551

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Stewart WC, Stewart JA, Nassar QJ, Mychaskiw MA (2008) Cost-effectiveness of treating ocular hypertension. Ophthalmology 115:94–98

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Sun X, Zhang S, Wang N et al (2009) Utility assessment among patients of primary angle closure/glaucoma in China: a preliminary study. Br J Ophthalmol 93:871–874

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Tubach F, Wells GA, Ravaud P, Dougados M (2005) Minimal clinically important difference, low disease activity state, and patient acceptable symptom state: methodological issues. J Rheumatol 32:2025–2029

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Vaahtoranta-Lehtonen H, Tuulonen A, Aronen P et al (2007) Cost effectiveness and cost utility of an organized screening programme for glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 85:508–518

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Von Neumann JMO (1953) Therory of Games and Economic Behavior., 3rd edn. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, pp 15–16

Download references

Interessenkonflikt

Der korrespondierende Autor gibt an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Augenklinik der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Mathildenstraße 8, 80336, München, Deutschland

    C. Hirneiß, A. Kampik & A.S. Neubauer

Authors
  1. C. Hirneiß
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. Kampik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A.S. Neubauer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. Hirneiß.

Additional information

Wesentliche Inhalte des Manuskripts wurden auf der 107. Jahrestagung der DOG im Rahmen eines Referats vorgetragen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hirneiß, C., Kampik, A. & Neubauer, A. „Value-based medicine“ bei Glaukom. Ophthalmologe 107, 223–227 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00347-009-2035-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00347-009-2035-9

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation