Skip to main content
Log in

„Value-based medicine“ in der Augenheilkunde

Value-based medicine in ophthalmology

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

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund

Die „value-based medicine“ (VBM) nimmt eine Bewertung der Aufwendungen (Kosten) für medizinisches Handeln mit dem resultierenden Nutzen für den Patienten vor. Das ermöglicht eine quantitative Analyse von Diagnostik- und Therapieoptionen mit zunehmender Bedeutung auch in der Augenheilkunde.

Methoden

Anhand relevanter Publikationen wird das gesundheitsökonomische Vorgehen der VBM erläutert, und es werden die hierbei verwendeten Methoden und Begriffe erklärt.

Ergebnisse

Die VBM umfasst über die „evidence-based medicine“ hinaus die Parameter Kosten für die ophthalmologischen Aufwendungen und Lebensqualität. Die visuelle Funktion wird durch das Time-trade-off-Verfahren als Nutzwert („utility“) abgebildet. Ophthalmologische Interventionen führen zu Nutzwertgewinn oder Nutzwerterhalt. Bei der Kosten-Nutzwert-Analyse werden aus Nutzwertgewinn und Lebenszeit qualitätsbereinigte Lebensjahre (QALYs) berechnet und in Verhältnis zu den Kosten gesetzt (€/QALY). Einige Kosten-Nutzwert-Analysen bei augenärztlichen Interventionen wurden bereits erstellt.

Schlussfolgerungen

Das wesentliche Instrument der VBM ist die Kosten-Nutzwert-Analyse. Die Ergebnisse in Kosten/QALY erlauben eine Einschätzung zur Kosteneffektivität ärztlicher Handlungen in der Augenheilkunde. Durch die Anwendung des Time-trade-off-Verfahrens ist eine fachübergreifende Beurteilung möglich, aber auch für individuelle Entscheidungen sind die Ergebnisse aus Berechnungen der VBM von Bedeutung.

Abstract

Purpose

Value-based medicine (VBM) unifies costs and patient-perceived value (improvement in quality of life, length of life, or both) of an intervention. Value-based ophthalmology is of increasing importance for decisions in eye care.

Methods

The methods of VBM are explained and definitions for a specific terminology in this field are given. The cost-utility analysis as part of health care economic analyses is explained.

Results

VBM exceeds evidence-based medicine by incorporating parameters of cost and benefits from an ophthalmological intervention. The benefit of the intervention is defined as an increase or maintenance of visual quality of life and can be determined by utility analysis. The time trade-off method is valid and reliable for utility analysis. The resources expended for the value gained in VBM are measured with cost-utility analysis in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life years gained (euros/QALY). Numerous cost-utility analyses of different ophthalmological interventions have been published.

Conclusion

The fundamental instrument of VBM is cost-utility analysis. The results in cost per QALY allow estimation of cost effectiveness of an ophthalmological intervention. Using the time trade-off method for utility analysis allows the comparison of ophthalmological cost-utility analyses with those of other medical interventions. VBM is important for individual medical decision making and for general health care.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Literatur

  1. Brown CG (1999) Vision and quality-of-life. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 97: 473–511

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Brown GC, Brown MM, Sharma S et al. (1999a) Cost-effectiveness of treatment for threshold retinopathy of prematury. Paediatrics 104: 47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Brown GC, Brown MM, Sharma S et al. (2000) Incremental cost-effectiveness of laser photocoagulation for subfoveal choroidal neovascularization. Ophthalmology 107: 1374–1380

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Brown GC, Sharma S, Brown MM et al. (2000) Difference between ophthalmologists‘ and patients‘ perceptions of quality of life associated with age related macular degeneration. Can J Ophthalmol 35: 127–133

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Brown MM, Brown GC, Sharma S et al. (1999b) Evidence based medicine, utilities, and quality of life. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 10: 221–226

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Brown MM, Brown GC, Sharma S et al. (2001) Quality of life associated with unilateral and bilateral good vision. Ophthalmology 108: 643–647

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Busbee BG, Brown MM, Brown, GC (2002) Incremental cost-effectiveness of initial cataract surgery. Ophthalmology 109: 606–612

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Cheng AK, Rubin HR, Powe NR et al. (2000) Cost-utility analysis of the cochlear implant in children. JAMA 284: 850–856

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Detsky AS, Naglie G, Krahn MD (1997) Primer on medical decision analysis; Part 1 Getting started. Part 2 Building a tree. Med Decis Making 17: 123–135

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Drummond ME, O‘Brien B, Stoddart GL (1999) Methods fort he Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes, 2nd en. Oxford University Pres, New York

  13. Ebell MH, Warbasse L, Brenner C (1997) Evaluation of the dyspeptic patients: a cost-utility study. J Fam Pract 44: 545–555

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hayman JA, Hillner BE, Harris JR et al. (1998) Cost-effectiveness of routine radiation therapy following conservative surgery for early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 16: 1022–1029

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hirneiss C, Neubauer AS, Welge-Luessen U et al. (2003) Bestimmung der Lebensqualität des Patienten in der Augenheilkunde. Ophthalmologe 100: 1091–1097

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hirneiss C, Rombold F, Kampik A, Neubauer AS (2005) Visual quality of life after vitreoretinal surgery for epiretinal membranes. Ophthalmologe (Epub ahead of print)

  17. 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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hollands H, Lam M, Pater J et al. (2001) Reliability of the time-trade-off technique of utility assessment in patients with retinal disease. Can J Ophthalmol 36: 202–209

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hopley C, Salkeld G, Mitchell P (2004) Cost utility of photodynamic therapy for predominantly classic neovascular age related macular degeneration. Br J Ophthalmol 88: 982–987

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hopley C, Salkeld G, Wang JJ, Mitchell P (2004) Cost utility of screening and treatment for early age related macular degeneration with zinc and antioxidants. Br J Ophthalmol 88: 450–454

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Klarmann H, Francis J, Rosenthal, G (1968) Cost-effectiveness applied to the treatment of chronic renal disease. Med Care 6: 48–55

    Google Scholar 

  22. König HH, Barry JC (2004) Cost effectiveness of treatment for ambloypia: an analysis based on a probabilistic Markov model. Br J Ophthalmol 88: 606–612

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Lacey LA, Wolf A, O‘shea D et al. (2005) Cost-effectiveness of orlistat for the treatment of overweight and obese patients in Ireland. Int J Obes Relat Metabol Disord (im Druck)

  24. Laupacis A, Feeny D, Detsky AS et al. (1992) How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilizytion? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. Can Med Assoc J 146: 473–481

    Google Scholar 

  25. Mangione, CM, Berry, S, Spritzer, K (1998) Identifying the content area for the 51-item National Eye Institut Visual Function Questionnaire: results from focus groups with visually impaired persons. Arch Ophthalmol 116: 227–233

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Mushlin AI, Mooney C, Holloway RG (1997) The cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging for patients with equivocal neurological symptoms. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 13: 21–34

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Neubauer AS, Neubauer S (2005) Kosteneffektivität von Screening auf Amblyopie. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 222: 1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Sackett DL, Straus SE, Richardson WS et al. (2000) Evidence-based Medicine. How to practice and teach EBM, 2nd en. Churchill Livingstone, Philadelphia, pp 1–12

  29. Samsa GP, Matchar DB, Goldstein L et al. (1998) Utilities for major stroke: results from a survey of preferences among persons at increased risk for stroke. Am Heart J 136: 703–713

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Sendi PP, Bucher HC, Steurer J (1998) Kritische Beurteilung einer Kosteneffektivitäts-Analyse. Praxis 1998, Verlag Hans Huber, Bern. 87: 1695: 1702

  31. Sharma S, Brown GC, Brown MM et al. (2002) Validity of the time trade-off and standard gamble methods of utility assessment in retinal patients. Br J Ophthalmol 86: 493–496

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Sharma S, Brown GC, Brown MM et al. (2001) The cost-effectiveness of photodynamic therapy for fellow eyes with subfoveal choroidal neovascularization secondary to age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology 108: 2051–2059

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Stein JD (2004) Disparities between ophthalmologists and their patients in estimating quality of life. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 15: 238–243

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Steinberg, EP, Tielsch, JM, Schein, OD et al (1994) The VF-14: an index of functional impairment in cataract patients. Arch Ophthalmol 112: 630–638

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Torrance GW, Feeny D. (1989) Utilities and Quality-adjusted life years. Intl. J. of Technology Assessment in Health Care 5: 559–575

    Google Scholar 

  36. Velasco M et al. (2002) Best practice in undertaking and reporting HTA Int J Technol Assess Health Care 18: 321–422

    Google Scholar 

  37. Weinstein MC, Siegel JE, Gold MR et al. (1996) Recommendations of the Panel on Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA 276: 1253–1258

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Interessenkonflikt

Es besteht kein Interessenkonflikt. Der korrespondierende Autor versichert, dass keine Verbindungen mit einer Firma, deren Produkt in dem Artikel genannt ist, oder einer Firma, die ein Konkurrenzprodukt vertreibt, bestehen. Die Präsentation des Themas ist unabhängig und die Darstellung der Inhalte produktneutral.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. Hirneiß.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hirneiß, C., Neubauer, A.S., Tribus, C. et al. „Value-based medicine“ in der Augenheilkunde. Ophthalmologe 103, 493–500 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00347-006-1340-9

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00347-006-1340-9

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Navigation