May 2008
Volume 49, Issue 13
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2008
Quality of Pharmacoeconomic Analyses of Macular Degeneration Therapies
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • W. J. Foster
    The University of Houston, Houston, Texas
    Ophthalmology, Weill Cornell Medical College at The Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas
  • W. Tufail
    The University of Houston, Houston, Texas
    The Program in Personalized Medicine & Targeted Therapeutics,
  • A. M. Issa
    The University of Houston, Houston, Texas
    The Program in Personalized Medicine & Targeted Therapeutics,
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  W.J. Foster, None; W. Tufail, None; A.M. Issa, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support  NIH Grant EY017112, AHRQ
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2008, Vol.49, 4997. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      W. J. Foster, W. Tufail, A. M. Issa; Quality of Pharmacoeconomic Analyses of Macular Degeneration Therapies. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2008;49(13):4997. doi:

      Download citation file:

      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

  • Supplements

Purpose: : To determine whether sufficient quality evidence exists regarding economic evaluations of therapeutics for age-related macular degeneration (AMD), and to identify predictors of study quality.

Methods: : We conducted a systematic search of the literature, and performed database searches for economic studies of AMD therapeutics published since January 1990. We used the Quality of Health Economic Studies scale, a validated rating scale to grade articles that met our eligibility criteria. We performed regression analyses for predictors of quality.

Results: : Our initial evaluation yielded 90 articles. Of these, only 23 articles met our inclusion criteria for original papers that were determined to be comparative economic evaluations. The mean quality rating overall was 61.6, with quality scores ranging from 18 to 92. There was a higher mean evaluation score in the studies designed as clinical trials vs. observational type designed studies (mean = 74.7(11.4), 52.6(16.5) respectively, p=.002). Papers in which the statistical analyses were clearly presented had a higher mean evaluation score than papers in which the statistical analyses was not so clear (mean = 74.3(12.3), 53.1(16.1) respectively, p=.004). A general linear model was fitted using those independent variables which were significantly associated with evaluation score. The variables "type of study" and "statistics presented clearly" were found to be jointly significant in the model and explained nearly 70% of the variation in the dependent variable (R2=.68).

Conclusions: : As far as we know, this was the first study to assess the quality of the evidence of pharmacoeconomic studies of AMD. Our analysis reveals that less than one quarter of AMD therapeutic economic studies meet criteria for high quality as assessed by a validated instrument. Future pharmacoeconomic analyses of AMD therapeutics should use consistent, standardized outcome measures so that policy makers can more accurately use these studies to make reimbursement and other decisions.

Keywords: clinical (human) or epidemiologic studies: health care delivery/economics/manpower • age-related macular degeneration • clinical (human) or epidemiologic studies: biostatistics/epidemiology methodology 

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.