Cost Comparison Between Defocus Spectacle Lens and Compound Atropine in Myopia Treatment in the Portuguese Setting

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Barros da Silva, P
Data de Publicação: 2024
Outros Autores: Ludovico, I, Basilio, AL, Guimarães, S
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
Texto Completo: http://hdl.handle.net/10400.17/4911
Resumo: INTRODUCTION: The rising prevalence of myopia poses a substantial global concern. Low concentration atropine and defocus spectacle lens (DSL) are the most widely used myopia prevention treatment in Portugal. Atropine drops must be compounded in pharmacies, because there is still no commercial low concentration atropine approved in Portugal. There are no studies with enough evidence to prefer one treatment over the other, so cost might be a decisive factor. Our purpose was to compare the costs between DSL and compound atropine for myopia progression prevention in Portugal. METHODS: We collected data on compound atropine from different pharmacies in Portugal, monofocal (MF) lenses prices from the four most common brands in Portugal and DSL price from brand representatives. Cost estimates were done per year of four consecutive years of myopia prevention treatment, considering different scenarios according to the need of spectacle lens exchange. We compared costs of low dose compound atropine plus MF lens versus DSL in the different scenarios. RESULTS: Atropine treatment proved more cost-effective than DSL treatment only when there was a requirement for lens exchange every 6 months or less (609.25€ for atropine versus 780.00€ for DSL per year of treatment). When myopia progression prevention is more effectiveand the need of lens exchange is equal or greater than 12 months, DSL treatment showed to be less expensive than mean values of atropine treatment plus MF lens (390.00€ for DSL vs 464.59€ for atropine, per year of treatment). CONCLUSION: DSL take a cost advantage in prevention of myopia progression, in situations when there is a need of lens exchange within once a year or less frequently. However, atropine plus MF lenses might be a less expensive in cases whenever there is a need of lens exchange every 6 months or more frequently. It is essential to conduct further studies focusing on the costeffectiveness of different treatment options for preventing myopia progression
id RCAP_4afb8214c3b64be81d3e7ac876c32e65
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio.chlc.pt:10400.17/4911
network_acronym_str RCAP
network_name_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository_id_str 7160
spelling Cost Comparison Between Defocus Spectacle Lens and Compound Atropine in Myopia Treatment in the Portuguese SettingComparação do Custo de Lentes de Desfocagem e Atropina Manipulada no Tratamento da Miopia no Contexto PortuguêsAtropine/therapeutic useCost-Effectiveness AnalysisEyeglassesLenses, IntraocularMyopia/therapyHSJ OFTINTRODUCTION: The rising prevalence of myopia poses a substantial global concern. Low concentration atropine and defocus spectacle lens (DSL) are the most widely used myopia prevention treatment in Portugal. Atropine drops must be compounded in pharmacies, because there is still no commercial low concentration atropine approved in Portugal. There are no studies with enough evidence to prefer one treatment over the other, so cost might be a decisive factor. Our purpose was to compare the costs between DSL and compound atropine for myopia progression prevention in Portugal. METHODS: We collected data on compound atropine from different pharmacies in Portugal, monofocal (MF) lenses prices from the four most common brands in Portugal and DSL price from brand representatives. Cost estimates were done per year of four consecutive years of myopia prevention treatment, considering different scenarios according to the need of spectacle lens exchange. We compared costs of low dose compound atropine plus MF lens versus DSL in the different scenarios. RESULTS: Atropine treatment proved more cost-effective than DSL treatment only when there was a requirement for lens exchange every 6 months or less (609.25€ for atropine versus 780.00€ for DSL per year of treatment). When myopia progression prevention is more effectiveand the need of lens exchange is equal or greater than 12 months, DSL treatment showed to be less expensive than mean values of atropine treatment plus MF lens (390.00€ for DSL vs 464.59€ for atropine, per year of treatment). CONCLUSION: DSL take a cost advantage in prevention of myopia progression, in situations when there is a need of lens exchange within once a year or less frequently. However, atropine plus MF lenses might be a less expensive in cases whenever there is a need of lens exchange every 6 months or more frequently. It is essential to conduct further studies focusing on the costeffectiveness of different treatment options for preventing myopia progressionSociedade Portuguesa de OftalmologiaRepositório do Centro Hospitalar Universitário de Lisboa Central, EPEBarros da Silva, PLudovico, IBasilio, ALGuimarães, S2024-05-21T15:04:14Z20242024-01-01T00:00:00Zinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/10400.17/4911engRev Soc Port Oftalmol. 2024; 48(1):60-65info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAP2024-10-28T10:31:37Zoai:repositorio.chlc.pt:10400.17/4911Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openairemluisa.alvim@gmail.comopendoar:71602024-10-28T10:31:37Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Cost Comparison Between Defocus Spectacle Lens and Compound Atropine in Myopia Treatment in the Portuguese Setting
Comparação do Custo de Lentes de Desfocagem e Atropina Manipulada no Tratamento da Miopia no Contexto Português
title Cost Comparison Between Defocus Spectacle Lens and Compound Atropine in Myopia Treatment in the Portuguese Setting
spellingShingle Cost Comparison Between Defocus Spectacle Lens and Compound Atropine in Myopia Treatment in the Portuguese Setting
Barros da Silva, P
Atropine/therapeutic use
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Eyeglasses
Lenses, Intraocular
Myopia/therapy
HSJ OFT
title_short Cost Comparison Between Defocus Spectacle Lens and Compound Atropine in Myopia Treatment in the Portuguese Setting
title_full Cost Comparison Between Defocus Spectacle Lens and Compound Atropine in Myopia Treatment in the Portuguese Setting
title_fullStr Cost Comparison Between Defocus Spectacle Lens and Compound Atropine in Myopia Treatment in the Portuguese Setting
title_full_unstemmed Cost Comparison Between Defocus Spectacle Lens and Compound Atropine in Myopia Treatment in the Portuguese Setting
title_sort Cost Comparison Between Defocus Spectacle Lens and Compound Atropine in Myopia Treatment in the Portuguese Setting
author Barros da Silva, P
author_facet Barros da Silva, P
Ludovico, I
Basilio, AL
Guimarães, S
author_role author
author2 Ludovico, I
Basilio, AL
Guimarães, S
author2_role author
author
author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv Repositório do Centro Hospitalar Universitário de Lisboa Central, EPE
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Barros da Silva, P
Ludovico, I
Basilio, AL
Guimarães, S
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Atropine/therapeutic use
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Eyeglasses
Lenses, Intraocular
Myopia/therapy
HSJ OFT
topic Atropine/therapeutic use
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Eyeglasses
Lenses, Intraocular
Myopia/therapy
HSJ OFT
description INTRODUCTION: The rising prevalence of myopia poses a substantial global concern. Low concentration atropine and defocus spectacle lens (DSL) are the most widely used myopia prevention treatment in Portugal. Atropine drops must be compounded in pharmacies, because there is still no commercial low concentration atropine approved in Portugal. There are no studies with enough evidence to prefer one treatment over the other, so cost might be a decisive factor. Our purpose was to compare the costs between DSL and compound atropine for myopia progression prevention in Portugal. METHODS: We collected data on compound atropine from different pharmacies in Portugal, monofocal (MF) lenses prices from the four most common brands in Portugal and DSL price from brand representatives. Cost estimates were done per year of four consecutive years of myopia prevention treatment, considering different scenarios according to the need of spectacle lens exchange. We compared costs of low dose compound atropine plus MF lens versus DSL in the different scenarios. RESULTS: Atropine treatment proved more cost-effective than DSL treatment only when there was a requirement for lens exchange every 6 months or less (609.25€ for atropine versus 780.00€ for DSL per year of treatment). When myopia progression prevention is more effectiveand the need of lens exchange is equal or greater than 12 months, DSL treatment showed to be less expensive than mean values of atropine treatment plus MF lens (390.00€ for DSL vs 464.59€ for atropine, per year of treatment). CONCLUSION: DSL take a cost advantage in prevention of myopia progression, in situations when there is a need of lens exchange within once a year or less frequently. However, atropine plus MF lenses might be a less expensive in cases whenever there is a need of lens exchange every 6 months or more frequently. It is essential to conduct further studies focusing on the costeffectiveness of different treatment options for preventing myopia progression
publishDate 2024
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2024-05-21T15:04:14Z
2024
2024-01-01T00:00:00Z
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/10400.17/4911
url http://hdl.handle.net/10400.17/4911
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv Rev Soc Port Oftalmol. 2024; 48(1):60-65
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Portuguesa de Oftalmologia
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Portuguesa de Oftalmologia
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron:RCAAP
instname_str Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron_str RCAAP
institution RCAAP
reponame_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
collection Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
repository.mail.fl_str_mv mluisa.alvim@gmail.com
_version_ 1817548663106306048