Ready-made and custom-made eyeglasses in India: a cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomised controlled trial

Blake Angell, Ferhina Ali, Monica Gandhi, Umang Mathur, David S Friedman, Stephen Jan, Lisa Keay, Blake Angell, Ferhina Ali, Monica Gandhi, Umang Mathur, David S Friedman, Stephen Jan, Lisa Keay

Abstract

Objective: Ready-made spectacles have been suggested as a less resource-intensive treatment for the millions of people living with uncorrected refractive error (URE) in low-income environments. In spite of this interest, there have been no published economic evaluations examining the cost-effectiveness of ready-made spectacles. This study aims to determine the relative cost-effectiveness of offering ready-made spectacles (RMS) relative to no intervention as well as the relative cost-effectiveness of custom-made spectacles (CS) relative to RMS to treat URE.

Methods and analysis: The relative cost-effectiveness of RMS relative to CS and no intervention was tested through a cost-effectiveness analysis from the health service provider perspective conducted alongside a double-masked randomised controlled trial in an urban hospital in Delhi, India. Participants were adults aged 18-45 years with ≥1 dioptre (D) of URE.

Results: There was no significant difference between the effectiveness of the CS and RMS interventions in improving visual acuity, but the CS was over four times the price of the RMS per patient (204 INR (US$2.42) and 792 INR (US$11.22)). The cost per unit improvement in logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) relative to baseline with the RMS intervention was 407 INR (US$4.35). Existing estimates of utility resulting from improvements in visual acuity result in incremental cost per quality-adjusted life years gained of between 212 INR and 1137 INR (US$0.44-US$23.74) depending on the source of the utility estimate and assumed expected life of the spectacles.

Conclusion: RMS represent a significantly cost-effective option for spectacle provision in low-resource settings. The RMS programme was substantially cheaper than an equivalent CS intervention while being effective in improving visual acuity for the majority of adults with refractive error in this setting. These findings provide further support for including RMS in programmes to address URE.

Trial registration number: NCT00657670, Results.

Keywords: optics and refraction; public health.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

References

    1. Resnikoff S, Pascolini D, Mariotti SP, et al. . Global magnitude of visual impairment caused by uncorrected refractive errors in 2004. Bull World Health Organ 2008;86:63–70.
    1. Smith TS, Frick KD, Holden BA, et al. . Potential lost productivity resulting from the global burden of uncorrected refractive error. Bull World Health Organ 2009;87:431–7.
    1. Thulasiraj RD, Nirmalan PK, Ramakrishnan R, et al. . Blindness and vision impairment in a rural south Indian population: the Aravind Comprehensive Eye Survey. Ophthalmology 2003;110:1491–8.
    1. Dandona R, Dandona L, Srinivas M, et al. . Planning low vision services in India : a population-based perspective. Ophthalmology 2002;109:1871–8.
    1. Marmamula S, Keeffe JE, Rao GN, et al. . Uncorrected refractive errors, presbyopia and spectacle coverage: results from a rapid assessment of refractive error survey. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 2009;16:269–74.
    1. Marmamula S, Keeffe JE, Raman U, et al. . Population-based cross-sectional study of barriers to utilisation of refraction services in South India: Rapid Assessment of Refractive Errors (RARE) Study. BMJ Open 2011;1:e000172
    1. Brian G, du Toit R, Wilson D, et al. . Affordable ready-made spectacles for use in blindness prevention programmes: setting standards of quality. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2006;34:722–4.
    1. Naidoo K, Ravilla D. Delivering refractive error services: primary eye care centres and outreach. Community Eye Health 2007;20:42–4.
    1. Ramke J, du Toit R, Palagyi A, et al. . Correction of refractive error and presbyopia in Timor-Leste. Br J Ophthalmol 2007;91:860–6.
    1. Ramke J, du Toit R, Palagyi A, et al. . Public sector refraction and spectacle dispensing in low-resource countries of the Western Pacific. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2008;36:339–47.
    1. Vincent JE. Simple spectacles for adult refugees on the Thailand-Burma border. Optom Vis Sci 2006;83:803–10.
    1. Prinja S, Chauhan AS, Angell B, et al. . A Systematic Review of the State of Economic Evaluation for Health Care in India. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2015;13:595–613.
    1. Smith AF, Brown GC. Understanding cost effectiveness: a detailed review. Br J Ophthalmol 2000;84:794–8.
    1. Keay L, Gandhi M, Brady C, et al. . A randomized clinical trial to evaluate ready-made spectacles in an adult population in India. Int J Epidemiol 2010;39:877–88.
    1. Zeng Y, Keay L, He M, et al. . A randomized, clinical trial evaluating ready-made and custom spectacles delivered via a school-based screening program in China. Ophthalmology 2009;116:1839–45.
    1. Brady CJ, Villanti AC, Gandhi M, et al. . Visual function after correction of distance refractive error with ready-made and custom spectacles: a randomized clinical trial. Ophthalmology 2012;119:2014–20.
    1. Ramke J, Palagyi A, Toit R, et al. . Applying standards to readymade spectacles used in low-resource countries. Optom Vis Sci 2009;86:1104–11.
    1. Thibos LN, Wheeler W, Horner D. Power vectors: an application of Fourier analysis to the description and statistical analysis of refractive error. Optom Vis Sci 1997;74:367–75.
    1. Gold M. Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Medical Care 1996;12:DS197–9.
    1. The World Bank Group. GDP deflator (base year varies by country). 2017.
    1. XE. Current and Historical Rate Tables. 2016.
    1. Sharma S, Brown GC, Brown MM, et al. . Converting visual acuity to utilities. Can J Ophthalmol 2000;35:267–72.
    1. Brown GC, Sharma S, Brown MM, et al. . Utility values and age-related macular degeneration. Arch Ophthalmol 2000;118:47–51.
    1. Brown MM, Brown GC, Sharma S, et al. . Health care economic analyses and value-based medicine. Surv Ophthalmol 2003;48:204–23.
    1. Sharma S, Brown GC, Brown MM, et al. . Validity of the time trade-off and standard gamble methods of utility assessment in retinal patients. Br J Ophthalmol 2002;86:493–6.
    1. Rachapelle S, Legood R, Alavi Y, et al. . The cost-utility of telemedicine to screen for diabetic retinopathy in India. Ophthalmology 2013;120:566–73.
    1. Aggarwal R, Ghoshal UC, Naik SR. Assessment of cost-effectiveness of universal hepatitis B immunization in a low-income country with intermediate endemicity using a Markov model. J Hepatol 2003;38:215–22.
    1. Sahni M, Jindal K, Abraham N, et al. . Hepatitis B immunization: cost calculation in a community-based study in India. Indian J Gastroenterol 2004;23:16.
    1. Baltussen R, Smith A. Cost effectiveness of strategies to combat vision and hearing loss in sub-Saharan Africa and South East Asia: mathematical modelling study. BMJ 2012;344:e615
    1. International Agency for the Prevention of Blindness. IAPB Position Statement on Ready Made Spectacles: IAPB, 2016.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors et collaborateurs

Les conditions médicales

Interventions en matière de drogue

3
S'abonner