Next Article in Journal
Current Perspectives on the Determinants of Acceptability of Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis and Nonoccupational Post-Exposure Prophylaxis among People at Risk for HIV: A Scoping Review
Next Article in Special Issue
The Effect of Depressive and Insomnia Symptoms in Quality of Life among Community-Dwelling Older Adults
Previous Article in Journal
Emissions of Fungal Volatile Organic Compounds in Residential Environments and Temporal Emission Patterns: Implications for Sampling Methods
Previous Article in Special Issue
Empirical Research into the Development Mechanism of Industry Innovation of Health and Wellness Tourism in the Context of the Sharing Economy
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 19
Issue 19
10.3390/ijerph191912603
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Transition from Laser to Intravitreal Injections for Diabetic Retinopathy: Hospital Utilization and Costs from an Extended Healthcare Perspective

by
Silvia Nanjala Walekhwa Hertzberg
1,
Øystein K. Jørstad
2,
Beáta Éva Petrovski
1,
Ragnheidur Bragadottir
1,2,
Leif Arthur Steffensen
3,
Morten Carstens Moe
1,2,
Emily A. Burger
4,5,† and
Goran Petrovski
1,2,6,*,†
1
Center for Eye Research, Department of Ophthalmology, Institute for Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, 0450 Oslo, Norway
2
Department of Ophthalmology, Oslo University Hospital, 0450 Oslo, Norway
3
Human Resources, Oslo University Hospital, 0424 Oslo, Norway
4
Department of Health Management and Health Economics, University of Oslo, 0317 Oslo, Norway
5
Center for Health Decision Science, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA 02115, USA
6
Department of Ophthalmology, University of Split School of Medicine and University Hospital Centre, 21000 Split, Croatia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work and shared last authors.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(19), 12603; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912603
Submission received: 17 August 2022 / Revised: 26 September 2022 / Accepted: 28 September 2022 / Published: 2 October 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Innovations in Health Economics, Social Policy and Health Management)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Purpose: To describe the trends in hospital utilization and economic outcomes associated with the transition from laser to intravitreal injection (IVI) therapy for diabetic retinopathy (DR) at Oslo University Hospital (OUH), which provides the largest retina service in Norway. Methods: This descriptive study analyzed hospital administrative data and determined the average utilization and treatment proportions of laser therapy, IVIs and vitrectomy for each patient per year. The Chi-square test was used to compare resource use between treatment groups. From an extended healthcare perspective, the annual cost per patient was calculated using Norwegian tariff data from 2020 and the National Medication Price Registry for patients seen between 2010 and 2018. Bootstrapping was performed to generate 95% confidence intervals for the cost per patient per year. Results: Among the 1838 (41% female) patients treated for DR between 2005 and 2018, OUH provided on average 1.09 laser treatments per DR patient and 0.54 vitrectomies per DR patient in 2005, whose utilization declined to 0.54 and 0.05 treatments per DR patient, respectively, by 2018. Laser treatments declined from 64% to 10%, while vitrectomies declined from 32% to 1%. In contrast, IVI treatments increased from 4.5% to 89% of the total share, representing an average increase, from 0.08 injections per patient in 2005 to 4.73 injections per patient in 2018. Both the increasing number of DR patients and the shift in the type of treatment increased the economic costs of treating DR from a total of EUR 0.605 million (EUR 2935 per patient) in 2010 to EUR 2.240 million (EUR 3665 per patient) in 2018, with IVIs contributing considerably to these costs. Conclusions: Despite the decline in the use of vitrectomies, the transition from laser to IVI therapy for DR increased the healthcare resource utilization and economic costs of its treatment over the observed time. A main cost driver was the need for long-term IVIs, in addition to the drug cost itself. Trade-offs can be achieved through effective alternative IVI delivery or appropriate drug choice that balances patient needs with the economic burden of treating DR.

1. Introduction

Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is a complication of diabetes mellitus (DM) and primarily affects the small retinal vessels. Globally, DR is a major cause of blindness, especially among working-age individuals [1]. The burden of DR is likely to escalate in the future, accompanied by an increasing prevalence of DM. Studies have projected that by the year 2045, 628.6 million people will suffer from DM, of whom one third are expected to develop DR [2,3].
Early diagnosis and treatment of DR are critical, as treatment can halt further progression and prevent blindness. DR is classified according to severity levels: (1) no apparent retinopathy, (2) mild, moderate, or severe non-proliferate diabetic retinopathy (NPDR), and (3) proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) [4]. Notoriously, DR often remains asymptomatic until development of PDR or diabetic macular edema (DME) [2].
Historically, the treatment of DR has predominantly involved laser photocoagulation (2–3-day sessions). Laser therapy is still considered the main treatment for PDR; however, it has poor potential to improve visual acuity (VA) [5]. On the other hand, intravitreal injection (IVI) of antiangiogenic biologics (e.g., bevacizumab, ranibizumab and aflibercept) or corticosteroids (e.g., triamcinolone acetonide, dexamethasone and fluocinolone) has significantly transformed the management of DR, improving the visual prognosis of DME compared to the conventional laser therapy [6]. The better visual outcomes associated with IVI therapies have been attributed to the immediate release of the drug to the targeted tissue compared to laser therapy [7,8,9,10,11].
Late stages of DR may require vitreoretinal surgery to improve the oxygenation of the retina and remove fibrous membranes and opacities in the vitreous body, as well as in the posterior hyaloid [12,13]. Even though vitreoretinal surgery is considered highly effective and safe in treating severe cases, patients may experience side effects, e.g., inflammation, blurred vision and post-vitrectomy cataracts, resulting in unfavorable visual outcomes [14].
The DME and DR severity levels of the individual patient are the main determinants for the choice of treatment [15]. A study on the treatment preferences among DR patients found that visual function influenced the treatment choice [16]. This finding was supported by another study, in which patients turned down a less frequent laser treatment and instead preferred a more frequent IVI treatment, as the latter better improved the visual prognosis [17]. Given the effectiveness of IVIs, there is currently a preference for IVIs in treating DR in even earlier than severe levels or in treating DME. However, this poses challenges in providing sufficient patient care as well as challenges in resource availability [18,19,20,21]. As IVIs require frequent retreatment—e.g., on a monthly basis (or using the treat-and-extend protocol at 4-, 8- or 12-week intervals)—in regard to the drug used, the costs and patient time commitments may vary greatly.
In line with the strong evidence, Norwegian ophthalmologists have gradually adapted IVIs for DR therapy, largely replacing conventional laser therapy for DME. Still, little is known about the state of DR therapy in Norway over longer periods of time. Specifically, the need for prolonged IVIs may increase the burden of managing DR compared to potentially permanent laser therapy.
In this study, we aim to describe the trends in hospital utilization and economic outcomes associated with the transition from laser to IVI therapy for DR during the period between 2005 and 2018, including trends in the use of vitreoretinal surgery in the same time period at the Department of Ophthalmology, Oslo University Hospital (OUH).

2. Methods

2.1. Study Design and Patient Population

This is a retrospective, registry-based study, which descriptively quantifies the resource use and economic costs of managing DR over time in a large retina service setting. The study took place at the Department of Ophthalmology, OUH, which provides the largest retina service in Norway. The use of registry data was approved by the institutional data protection officer in accordance with the General Data Protection Regulation (20/08877). All patients diagnosed with and treated for DR were included irrespective of the type of diabetes and sex, and the average age per year per treatment was recorded.
Hospital statistics were searched for episodes of care that included the Nordic Medico-Statistical Committee’s Classification of Surgical Procedures (NCSP) codes CKC12: Transpupillary laser treatment of the retina, CKD05: IVI of a drug, or CKD65: Pars plana vitrectomy, in connection with the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) diagnosis H36.0: Diabetic retinopathy or E10.3 and E11.3 for type 1 and type 2 diabetes, respectively. The same ICD-10 code was used for PDR and DME, thus, we could not separate treatments for these two conditions. For each episode, we registered the following parameters: patient-specific identification number, sex, the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification system drug code, and the NCSP code ZXA 00, ZXA 05, or ZXA 10: Right, Left, or Bilateral procedure. We counted a bilateral procedure or the use of two different drugs as two separate procedures. Initially, ATC codes for bevacizumab and ranibizumab were not routinely registered, and we could only provide an overview of anti-VEGF drugs from 2010 to 2018. We also included the use of the dexamethasone implant Ozurdex (Allergan, Dublin, Ireland).
Although the ICD-10 diagnosis H36.0 includes both DR and DME, these patients face differing treatment protocols. Panretinal laser photocoagulation (PRP) was generally the mainstay of treatment for PDR throughout the study period, but anti-VEGF drugs were increasingly used as complementary treatments. On the other hand, anti-VEGF drugs almost fully replaced laser therapy for DME during the same time period. With regard to the drug of choice, bevacizumab was generally used as the first-line treatment for DME in the beginning of the anti-VEGF era, with ranibizumab as the second-line treatment pro re nata. Aflibercept became commercially available in 2013 and was initially used as the second-line treatment in treatment-resistant cases. In 2015, on the basis of DRCR.net Protocol T, aflibercept became the first-line treatment in DME cases presenting with decimal visual acuity of <0.4 [22]. Meanwhile, the dexamethasone intravitreal implant became commercially available in 2010 and has since been used as an alternative to anti-VEGF drugs pro re nata.
OUH serves as the local retina service for approximately one million people living in the city of Oslo and its nearby municipalities. Moreover, it is the regional vitreoretinal surgery service for about three million people living in Norway’s South-Eastern health region. Although this region has several other eye centers that perform laser and IVI treatment for diabetic eye diseases, vitrectomy only takes place at OUH. Consequently, the data generally represent laser and IVI treatment of our local patients, while vitrectomy data are for both local and regional patients.
The majority of local patients were referred to OUH by private ophthalmologists, typically following DR screening or because of symptomatic DME. Regional patients were generally referred from local eye departments, which performed laser and IVI treatment but not vitreoretinal surgery. Choice of treatment at OUH (i.e., laser, IVI or vitreoretinal surgery) was at the ophthalmologist’s discretion, changing over time in line with the best available evidence.

2.2. Costs

In line with the national guidelines [23], an extended healthcare perspective (e.g., direct healthcare costs and two-way transportation costs, as well as time spent by the patient to travel to the care facility and receive treatment) was used to calculate the annual treatment costs between 2010 and 2018 for each patient receiving either laser or IVI therapy. Calculation of the treatment costs between 2005 and 2009 was not possible due to irregular code registration of the IVI drugs. The initial patient diagnosis costs were excluded, as these were incurred by patients irrespective of the treatment type. To estimate costs, we included all relevant expenses related to each treatment, including optical coherence tomography (OCT) costs, outpatient hospital visit costs, patient co-payment, two-way patient travel costs, patient time to receive each treatment, and intraocular pressure measurement costs (in particular, after IVI of dexamethasone implants).
For all treatments, laser and vitreoretinal surgery, the diagnostic related group (DRG) weight for a respective treatment was multiplied with the unit cost to estimate the cost of treatment [24] (Table 1). The costs for laser and surgical equipment were assumed to be included within the DRG weight [25]. The cost for IVI was based on recommendations by the Norwegian Medicines Agency (2020). Considering that the drugs may vary in their cost, and so may the cost of vial compounding at the hospital pharmacy (NoMA drug cost [26]), the injection drug costs were estimated individually as the costs per drug agent. For example, one bevacizumab vial is generally divided into 40 single IVI doses, whereas ranibizumab and aflibercept are divided into 2 and 2.5 IVI doses, respectively. Therefore, we divided the cost of the drug by the number of individual doses and added the cost for the vial. As dexamethasone drug implants are individually packed, no vial cost was attributed; however, this treatment requires an extra visit for measuring the intraocular pressure, which also incurs a cost in itself.
For each patient, the number of visits for a given IVI treatment type (bevacizumab, ranibizumab, aflibercept or dexamethasone) was calculated and added to the total treatment cost for each year. The patient time required for each treatment at a given visit—the average time for laser therapy, IVI or vitreoretinal surgery, which was estimated to be 120 min, 90 min, and 150 min, respectively—was also added, including the estimated transportation time to and from our department. For each visit, we further added the transport costs for a two-way journey. The registry data could not indicate specific adverse events due to treatment. Therefore, these costs were not specifically included in the analysis. We applied the tariff and unit costs from 2020; therefore, the total treatment costs per year between 2010 and 2018 are expressed in 2020 Norwegian Kroner (NOK) and converted to Euros as per the 20 February 2020 exchange rate (NOK 1 = EUR 0.1) (Norges Bank).

2.3. Analyses and Outcomes

To explore the trends in resource use during the study period, we present the data descriptively by calculating the number of patients in each year, the number of each treatment type offered and the average number of laser therapies, IVIs and vitreoretinal surgeries per year between 2005 and 2018. To identify changes with the introduction of IVI therapy, we calculated the treatment percentage share for all three treatments (laser therapies, IVI and vitreoretinal surgeries) performed each year. The distribution and average differences between groups were tested using Chi-square (χ2) and multivariate tests, respectively, with a significance level of p < 0.05. In order to differentiate new patients from patients that may be continuing previous treatment protocols, we estimated the number of treatment-initiating patients per year as the number of new indexes per year. The difference between the total number of patients and the number of new patients in the year was considered to be the number of continuing patients for that year. Consequently, using the estimated continuing patients for each year in comparison to the previous year, we were able to establish patients either discharged or untreated in consecutive year(s). We estimated the average treatment cost per year per patient and performed bootstrapping to estimate the 95% confidence intervals. We explored the contribution of each drug used for IVI and estimated the cost associated to the drug. All statistical analyses were performed in STATA 16 [28] and Microsoft 365 (Excel).

3. Results

3.1. Hospital Utilization

The analysis included 1838 patients (41% females) diagnosed with and treated for DR between 2005 and 2018, increasing from 91 patients in 2005 to 611 in 2018 (Table 2). The patients’ average age ranged from 49 to 63 years, with the age of IVI patients having a varying upwards trend in the successive years. During the entire period, there were 5019 laser procedures with an average (±standard error) of 2.2 (±0.04) treatments per year per patient, 11969 IVIs with an average of 4.7 (±0.07) injections per year per patient, and 670 vitrectomies with an average of 1.2 (±0.02) surgeries per patient (Table 2). However, this resource usage was not constant over the study period. For example, the number of patients treated each year for DR increased from 91 (2005) to 611 (2018); the total laser treatment usage decreased from 64% in 2005 to 10% in 2018, while the average laser treatment usage declined from 1.09 (±0.14) per patient to 0.54 (±0.05) per patient in the same period. In contrast, total IVI treatment usage increased over time from 4.5% in 2005 to 89% in 2018, as the average IVI treatment usage increased from 0.08 (±0.03) in 2005 to 4.73 (±0.14) per patient in 2018. Finally, vitreoretinal surgery usage decreased from 32% in 2005 to 1% in 2018, as the average number of vitreoretinal surgeries performed declined from 0.54 (±0.06) in 2005 to 0.05 (±0.01) per patient in 2018 (Table 2). There were no statistical differences between sexes for any of the procedures, but there was a significant difference in the average number of treatments per year between the treatment groups (F statistic 386, 3-4430 degrees of freedom and p-value 0.0000). There were more new patients registered in 2007 followed by a decline until 2014, when we observed a steadily increasing pattern in the incidence of DR onwards. In the first years of the study, almost half of the patients were discontinued from their treatment regimen. From 2011, the gap between those retained on treatment (continuing patients) and those discontinued increased rapidly, with only a quarter of the patients in 2018 being discontinued accordingly (Figure 1).
As a share of the total DR treatments at OUH, the proportion of laser treatments declined, and the proportion of IVIs increased over the 13 years of observation. As with laser treatment, vitreoretinal surgery showed a decreasing trend over time, with 3% of patients receiving vitreoretinal surgery in 2018 compared to 14% in 2005 (Figure A1 and Figure A2). Fewer vitreoretinal surgery treatments were performed in the recent years compared to the years prior to 2010, with a number of patients being previously treated by laser and/or IVIs undergoing fewer vitreoretinal surgeries (Figure 2 and Figure A3). The same treatment patterns over time were observed according to the sex (results not shown).

3.2. Treatment Costs

The total cost per year increased from EUR 0.605 to EUR 2.240 million, and the total cost per patient per year increased from EUR 2906 to EUR 3665 in the same time period (2010–2018). The total cost per patient per year, however, did not differ much in each successive year (Table 3 and Figure 3). In the laser group, the average cost per patient remained almost unchanged throughout the observation period, ranging from EUR 899 in 2010 to EUR 836 in 2018. In contrast, in the IVI group, the average cost per patient increased more than three-fold in less than 10 years, from EUR 1116 (2010) to EUR 3442 (2018). Meanwhile, the average cost of vitreoretinal surgery remained nearly the same throughout the study period, from EUR 10,348 in 2005 to EUR 10,357 in 2018 (Table 3).
In the laser treatment group, the treatment use declined, keeping the total cost of this treatment modality low. The cost of vitreoretinal surgery also declined since fewer surgeries were performed over the study period. IVIs caused a steep rise in cost from 2014 onwards in particular, which again increased the total cost of DR treatment (Figure 3).
Corresponding to a steady increase in IVIs during the study period, the calculated drug cost expenses also increased. Initially, bevacizumab represented the main cost but was gradually replaced by aflibercept (Figure 4). Ranibizumab and dexamethasone were used less frequently over time, yielding lower costs (Figure 4).

4. Discussion

This study focused on the transition from laser to IVI therapy for DR and aimed to estimate its costs from an extended healthcare perspective. As could be expected, we found a decline in the use of laser and the cost associated with such treatment over the 13-year study period. Vitreoretinal surgery showed similar results. Conversely, IVIs increased over the same time period, in particular from 2013 onwards, when all included IVI drugs became available in Norway, resulting in escalating IVI expenditures in the treatment of DR.
Our registry data could not directly measure the visual outcomes of treatment, but we observed a negative correlation between the transition from laser to IVI and vitreoretinal surgery. The percentage of patients receiving vitreoretinal surgery decreased almost five-fold from 2005 to 2018, indicating a declining trend in the development of severe DR demanding vitreoretinal surgery after the introduction of IVIs. This is in line with a study by Gross et al., which found fewer vitrectomies being performed in patients with PDR being treated with ranibizumab compared to laser [29]. In addition, vitreous hemorrhage is now commonly treated with IVIs, even though the visual recovery appears to be slower than after vitrectomy [30]. Accordingly, the total cost of vitreoretinal surgery decreased over time in our study.
Like other studies have found, the cost of treating DR gradually increased, nearly quadrupling the total expenditure (from EUR 0.605 million to EUR 2.240 million) in less than 10 years (2010–2018), mainly because of IVIs [31,32,33]. Our patients received approximately five IVIs per year; those who did not respond to the first-line bevacizumab treatment or had a decimal visual acuity of <0.4 were switched to aflibercept [34]. Taken together, this intensified the treatment cost of DR through both cost- and visit-associated resource increases.
Our study only considered an extended healthcare perspective, and it is essential to note that any given study can highly impact the cost results of the analysis [35]. Therefore, the costs would have been enormous if our study considered a societal perspective as well. For instance, in a study from Germany that analyzed DR cost from two perspectives (payer’s and societal), the total cost was 57% higher when the societal perspective was included, compared to the payer’s perspective [36].
In general, laser equipment is readily available in retina clinics, and from an extended healthcare perspective, laser treatment only involves costs for the visits, resource use, and relevant patient time. In this study, patients treated with laser had a total treatment usage of 10% in 2018, down from 64% in 2005. The decrease in laser procedures is assumed to be a result of better visual outcomes obtained with IVI, for DME in particular [6,37,38,39].
IVI of anti-VEGFs and corticosteroids for DR has largely replaced laser therapy as the standard of care. Still, more patients receive IVI over time, and our study also shows that IVI generally continues for several years. In this way, the contemporary preference for IVI casts a burden on both patients and healthcare institutions; the increasing shortage of ophthalmologists adds yet another burden [40,41]. DR patients have been known to endure an already existing healthcare economic burden due to their DM state. The need for repetitive IVI may further affect the patients’ quality of life and treatment compliance [33,42,43,44,45]. In the case of frequent IVI use, the latter has been associated with greater outcomes in saving visual loss. Even though some studies have suggested decreasing the frequencies of IVIs in this patient group, frequent use may be beneficial, depending on the drug administered. For instance, the dexamethasone implant has prolonged efficacy (an average of 3 injections per year), though it may require further visits to manage intraocular pressure-related issues [10,15,33,46,47,48,49].
Further recommendations have been made to reduce the burden of IVIs, such as the treat-and-extend algorithm and same-day bilateral injections, though developments are still ongoing. For instance, bilateral injections may reduce visit frequency, but lack clear evidence about possible adverse events associated with their implementation (such as endophthalmitis and intraocular inflammation) [50,51,52]. Among the patients with DME, findings in a few studies have indicated similar or non-significantly improved visual acuity for the treat-and-extend algorithm compared to monthly dosing [53,54] Such a trade-off needs further research in different hospital settings to estimate the outcome benefit of this practice in patients with DR. Introduction of new biologics, such as faricimab, may also reduce the treatment burden, as it can be injected with even longer intervals [55,56].
Our study shows an accumulation of DR patients receiving long-term IVI treatment. Consequently, the average age increased over time. On the other hand, patients receiving laser or vitreoretinal surgery had similar or even lower age over time, which indicates that patients who are treated for PDR are getting younger. Additionally, for a number of patients, several years passed without additional visits after the initial treatment, but later most of them ended up receiving vitreoretinal surgery, which suggests poor compliance causing irregular follow-up in this small patient population [57]. Other studies have noted that younger DM patients have higher probability of not attending DR screening; the average age of our DR patients was between 49 and 63 over the observation period across all treatment modalities, which indicates that the same challenges prevailed among this age group [58].
Ten years ago (2011/2012), low adherence to DM patient screening was reported in Norway. The study indicated that neither the Norwegian General Practitioner Guidelines nor the Liverpool Declaration had an impact on detecting the disease, because of lack of regular eye screening as well as delayed referral [59]. This could also be the case for the current practice and should be further explored. Recent studies on DR patients’ adherence to treatment also showed that age, primary care physician and racial or ethnic background were associated with low adherence to treatment, affirming the risk among this patient group considering the cosmopolitan area the hospital serves [60,61].
With the increasing cost of treating DR patients, it will probably be necessary to re-evaluate the cost-effectiveness of available treatments, considering the possible risks for a lifetime or specified time of treatment/effect. It should also be emphasized that DR is potentially preventable, and appropriate screening programs must be established.
The strengths of our study include the existence of reliable administrative data over a relatively long period (13 years), enabling us to observe time-dependent changes in the pattern of DR treatment. There are also important limitations to the study. First, our administrative data could not capture disease progression or visual outcomes during treatment, and patients receiving multiple treatments were included. Second, it should also be kept in mind that choice of treatment was determined by clinical guidelines specific to our clinic and that different treatment protocols may have brought other results. Third, anti-VEGF injections may be administered to patients before vitreoretinal surgery to decrease the chance of intra-operative complication; such pre-operative injections may have lowered the average IVI frequency in the IVI group. Finally, the ICD-10 coding system does not differentiate between DR and DME.

5. Conclusions

Improved visual outcomes that have been demonstrated with IVI have led to transitioning from laser to IVI treatment for DR. We show that the need for IVI therapy has greatly increased hospital utilization and the cost of treating DR, except for a decline in the resource-demanding vitreoretinal surgery. An appropriate IVI drug choice that balances patient needs with economic costs would be a viable strategy in reducing the disease and cost burden in these patients. Nonetheless, an alternative effective regimen of IVI delivery can be a valuable trade-off for outcomes and economic benefit in lessening the frequency burden.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.N.W.H., Ø.K.J., B.É.P., R.B., L.A.S., M.C.M., E.A.B. and G.P.; Data curation, S.N.W.H., R.B. and L.A.S.; Formal analysis, S.N.W.H., Ø.K.J., B.É.P., E.A.B. and G.P.; Funding acquisition, M.C.M.; Methodology, S.N.W.H., Ø.K.J., B.É.P., R.B., M.C.M., E.A.B. and G.P.; Project administration, Ø.K.J. and G.P.; Supervision, E.A.B. and G.P.; Validation, S.N.W.H., Ø.K.J., B.É.P., R.B., M.C.M., E.A.B. and G.P.; Visualization, S.N.W.H., Ø.K.J., B.É.P., L.A.S., M.C.M., E.A.B. and G.P.; Writing—original draft, S.N.W.H., E.A.B. and G.P.; Writing—review & editing, S.N.W.H., Ø.K.J., B.É.P., R.B., L.A.S., M.C.M., E.A.B. and G.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

G.P. receives funding from the Baltic Research Programme of the European Economic Area (EEA) grants, for a project on “Integrated model for personalized diabetic retinopathy screening and monitoring using risk-stratification and automated AI-based fundus image analysis (PerDiRe)” (Contract No. EEZ/BPP/VIAA/2021/8).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Approved by the data protection officer in accordance with the General Data Protection Regulation: 20/08877.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Knut Reidar Wangen, Department of Health Management and Health Economics, University of Oslo, for his valuable advice regarding the analytical approach.

Conflicts of Interest

Ø.K.J. has been member of Bayer, Allergan and Roche advisory boards and has received lecture fees from Bayer and Allergan. M.C.M. has been member of Bayer, Novartis, Roche and Allergan advisory boards and has received lecture fees from Bayer and Roche. Goran has received travel and lecture fees from Alcon, DORC, Allergan and Roche. None of the other authors have any relevant conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Ijerph 19 12603 g0a1 550
Figure A1. Number of treated patients per year receiving intravitreal injection, laser or vitreoretinal surgery (2005–2018).
Figure A1. Number of treated patients per year receiving intravitreal injection, laser or vitreoretinal surgery (2005–2018).
Ijerph 19 12603 g0a1
Ijerph 19 12603 g0a2 550
Figure A2. Percentage of the number of patients with diabetic retinopathy being treated with the different treatment modalities per year.
Figure A2. Percentage of the number of patients with diabetic retinopathy being treated with the different treatment modalities per year.
Ijerph 19 12603 g0a2
Ijerph 19 12603 g0a3 550
Figure A3. Vitreoretinal surgery procedures performed on patients who did not receive any other treatment for diabetic retinopathy at Oslo University Hospital. Among those who received vitreoretinal surgery, there was an increasing trend for patients who were treated with surgery alone; in this patient group, however, the hospital service area was wider than for those receiving intravitreal injections and laser only.
Figure A3. Vitreoretinal surgery procedures performed on patients who did not receive any other treatment for diabetic retinopathy at Oslo University Hospital. Among those who received vitreoretinal surgery, there was an increasing trend for patients who were treated with surgery alone; in this patient group, however, the hospital service area was wider than for those receiving intravitreal injections and laser only.
Ijerph 19 12603 g0a3

References

  1. World Healh Organisation (WHO). Global Report on Diabetes; World Healh Organisation: Geneva, Switzerland, 2016; Volume 978.
  2. European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Global Statistics on Diabetes; ESC Press Office: Sophia, France; Available online: https://www.escardio.org/Education/Diabetes-and-CVD/Recommended-Reading/global-statistics-on-diabetes (accessed on 9 March 2020).
  3. International Diabetes Federation (IDF). Diabetic Mocular Edema. Available online: https://idf.org/54-our-activities/562-diabetic-macular-edema-dme.html (accessed on 9 March 2020).
  4. Scanlon, P.H.; Wilkinson, C.P.; Aldington, S.J.; Matthews, D.R. A Practical Manual of Diabetic Retinopathy Management; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Neubauer, A.S.; Ulbig, M.W. Laser Treatment in Diabetic Retinopathy. Ophthalmologica 2007, 221, 95–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Gardner, T.W.; Chew, E.Y. Future Opportunities in Diabetic Retinopathy Research. Curr. Opin. Endocrinol. Diabetes Obesity. 2016, 23, 91–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  7. Ollendorf, D.A.; Colby, J.A.; Pearson, S.D. Comparative Effectiveness of Anti-Vegf Agents for Diabetic Macular Edema. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 2013, 29, 392–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Heier, J.S.; Bressler, N.M.; Avery, R.L.; Bakri, S.J.; Boyer, D.S.; Brown, D.M.; Dugel, P.U.; Freund, K.B.; Glassman, A.R.; Kim, J.E.; et al. Comparison of Aflibercept, Bevacizumab, and Ranibizumab for Treatment of Diabetic Macular Edema: Extrapolation of Data to Clinical Practice. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2016, 134, 95–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Wells, J.A.; Glassman, A.R.; Ayala, A.R.; Jampol, L.M.; Aiello, L.P.; Antoszyk, A.N.; Arnold-Bush, B.; Baker, C.W.; Bressler, N.M.; Browning, D.J.; et al. Aflibercept, Bevacizumab, or Ranibizumab for Diabetic Macular Edema: Two-Year Results from a Comparative Effectiveness Randomized Clinical Trial. Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology 2016, 123, 1351–1359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  10. Matonti, F.; Pommier, S.; Meyer, F.; Hajjar, C.; Merite, P.Y.; Parrat, E.; Rouhette, H.; Rebollo, O.; Guigou, S. Long-Term Efficacy and Safety of Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant for the Treatment of Diabetic Macular Edema. Eur. J. Ophthalmol. 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Boyer, D.S.; Hopkins, J.J.; Sorof, J.; Ehrlich, J.S. Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Therapy for Diabetic Macular Edema. Ther. Adv. Endocrinol. Metabolism. 2013, 4, 151–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Berrocal, M.H.; Acaba-Berrocal, L. Early Pars Plana Vitrectomy for Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy: Update and Review of Current Literature. Curr. Opin. Ophthalmol. 2021, 32, 203–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Berrocal, M.H.; Chenworth, M.L.; Acaba, L.A. Management of Giant Retinal Tear Detachments. J. Ophthalmic Vis. Res. 2017, 12, 93–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Jackson, T.L.; Nicod, E.; Angelis, A.; Grimaccia, F.; Prevost, A.T.; Simpson, A.R.H.; Kanavos, P. Pars Plana Vitrectomy for Vitreomacular Traction Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Metaanalysis of Safety and Efficacy. Retina 2013, 33, 2012–2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Schmidt-Erfurth, U.; Garcia-Arumi, J.; Bandello, F.; Berg, K.; Chakravarthy, U.; Gerendas, B.S.; Jonas, J.; Larsen, M.; Tadayoni, R.; Loewenstein, A. Guidelines for the Management of Diabetic Macular Edema by the European Society of Retina Specialists (EURETINA). Ophthalmologica 2017, 237, 185–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Wirostko, B.; Beusterien, K.; Grinspan, J.; Ciulla, T.; Gonder, J.; Barsdorf, A.; Pleil, A. Patient Preferences in the Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy. Patient Prefer. Adherence 2011, 5, 229–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. Mason, L.; Crosson, J.N.; Mason, J.O.; Mcgwin, G. Patient Preferences with Regard to Laser versus Intravitreal Injections in the Treatment of Diabetic Macular Edema. J. Ophthalmol. 2017, 2017, 7398470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  18. Nicholson, B.P.; Schachat, A.P. A Review of Clinical Trials of Anti-VEGF Agents for Diabetic Retinopathy. Graefe’s Arch. Clin. Exp. Ophthalmol. 2010, 248, 915–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network. A Phase II Randomized Clinical Trial of Intravitreal Bevacizumab for Diabetic Macular Edema. Ophthalmology 2007, 10, 1860–1867. [Google Scholar]
  20. Singer, M.A.; Bell, D.J.; Woods, P.; Pollard, J.; Boord, T.; Herro, A.; Porbandarwalla, S. Effect of Combination Therapy with Bevacizumab and Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant in Patients with Retinal Vein Occlusion. Retina 2012, 32, 1289–1294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Nazari, H.; Modarres, M.; Parvaresh, M.M.; Ghasemi Falavarjani, K. Intravitreal Bevacizumab in Combination with Laser Therapy for the Treatment of Severe Retinopathy of Prematurity (ROP) Associated with Vitreous or Retinal Hemorrhage. Graefe’s Arch. Clin. Exp. Ophthalmol. 2010, 248, 1713–1718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network, (DRCR); Wells, J.A.; Glassman, A.R.; Ayala, A.R.; Jampol, L.M.; Aiello, L.P.; Antoszyk, A.N.; Arnold-Bush, B.; Baker, C.W.; Bressler, N.M.; et al. Aflibercept, Bevacizumab, or Ranibizumab for Diabetic Macular Edema. N. Engl. J. Med. 2015, 372, 1193–1203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Norwegian Medicines Agency. Guidelines for the Submission of Documentation for Single Technology Assessment (STA) of Pharmaceuticals. Available online: https://legemiddelverket.no/english/public-funding-and-pricing/documentation-for-sta/guidelines-for-the-submission-of-documentation-for-single-technology-assessment-sta-of-pharmaceuticals (accessed on 22 January 2021).
  24. NoMA. Unit Costs. Available online: https://legemiddelverket.no/Documents/Offentligfinansieringogpris/Dokumentasjontilmetodevurdering/Enhetskostnadsdatabase_kostnader_0040618.pdf (accessed on 9 March 2020).
  25. Helsedirektoratet. DRG-Systemet. Available online: https://www.helsedirektoratet.no/tema/finansiering/innsatsstyrt-finansiering-og-drg-systemet/drg-systemet#drglogikkdefinisjonstabeller (accessed on 21 September 2022).
  26. Lode, H.E.; Gjølberg, T.T.; Foss, S.; Sivertsen, M.S.; Brustugun, J.; Andersson, Y.; Jørstad, Ø.K.; Moe, M.C.; Andersen, J.T. A New Method for Pharmaceutical Compounding and Storage of Anti-VEGF Biologics for Intravitreal Use in Silicone Oil-Free Prefilled Plastic Syringes. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 18021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Helsedirektoratet. Regelverk for Innsatsstyrt Finansiering 2021 (ISF-Regelverket). Available online: https://www.helsedirektoratet.no/tema/finansiering/innsatsstyrt-finansiering-og-drg-systemet/innsatsstyrt-finansieringisf#:~:text=kodeverkene%20fra%202022-,Regelverk%202021,behandling%20av%20rusmiddelavhengige%20(TSB) (accessed on 30 September 2022).
  28. StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 16; StataCorp LLC: College Station, TX, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  29. Gross, J.G.; Glassman, A.R.; Jampol, L.M.; Inusah, S.; Aiello, L.P.; Antoszyk, A.N.; Baker, C.W.; Berger, B.B.; Bressler, N.M.; Browning, D.; et al. Panretinal Photocoagulation vs Intravitreous Ranibizumab for Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA J. Am. Med. Assoc. 2015, 314, 2137–2146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Glassman, A.R.; Beaulieu, W.T.; Maguire, M.G.; Antoszyk, A.N.; Chow, C.C.; Elman, M.J.; Jampol, L.M.; Salehi-Had, H.; Sun, J.K. Visual Acuity, Vitreous Hemorrhage, and Other Ocular Outcomes after Vitrectomy vs Aflibercept for Vitreous Hemorrhage Due to Diabetic Retinopathy: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2021, 139, 725–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Tóth, G.; Limburg, H.; Szabó, D.; Sándor, G.L.; Nagy, Z.Z.; Németh, J. Rapid Assessment of Avoidable Blindness-Based Healthcare Costs of Diabetic Retinopathy in Hungary and Its Projection for the Year 2045. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2021, 105, 1116–1120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Park, K.H.; Kim, Y.Y.; Jo, Y.J.; Oh, J.; Lee, J.E.; Lee, J.E.; Park, D.H.; Kang, S.W.; Lee, W.K.; Kim, H.K.; et al. Healthcare Utilization and Treatment Patterns in Diabetic Macular Edema in Korea: A Retrospective Chart Review. J. Korean Med. Sci. 2019, 34, e118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Spooner, K.L.; Guinan, G.; Koller, S.; Hong, T.; Chang, A.A. Burden Of Treatment Among Patients Undergoing Intravitreal Injections For Diabetic Macular Oedema In Australia. Diabetes Metab. Syndr. Obes. 2019, 12, 1913–1921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. Brown, D.M.; Wykoff, C.C.; Boyer, D.; Heier, J.S.; Clark, W.L.; Emanuelli, A.; Higgins, P.M.; Singer, M.; Weinreich, D.M.; Yancopoulos, G.D.; et al. Evaluation of Intravitreal Aflibercept for the Treatment of Severe Nonproliferative Diabetic Retinopathy: Results from the PANORAMA Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2021, 139, 946–955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Haas, M.; Hall, J. The Economic Evaluation of Health Care; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  36. Happich, M.; Reitberger, U.; Breitscheidel, L.; Ulbig, M.; Watkins, J. The Economic Burden of Diabetic Retinopathy in Germany in 2002. Graefe’s Arch. Clin. Exp. Ophthalmol. 2008, 246, 151–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Shea, A.M.; Curtis, L.H.; Hammill, B.G.; Kowalski, J.W.; Ravelo, A.; Lee, P.P.; Sloan, F.A.; Schulman, K.A. Resource Use and Costs Associated With Diabetic Macular Edema in Elderly Persons. Arch. Ophthalmol. 2008, 126, 1748–1754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Sun, J.K. Intravitreal Anti-VEGF Therapy with Prompt or Deferred Laser Compared with Steroid with Prompt Laser and Prompt Laser Alone for Treatment of Diabetic Macular Edema. Curr. Diab. Rep. 2011, 11, 227–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kiss, S.; Liu, Y.; Brown, J.; Holekamp, N.M.; Almony, A.; Campbell, J.; Kowalski, J.W. Clinical Utilization of Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth-Factor Agents and Patient Monitoring in Retinal Vein Occlusion and Diabetic Macular Edema. Clin. Ophthalmol. 2014, 8, 1611–1621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Mensah-Debrah, A.; Amissah Arthur, K.N.; Kumah, D.B.; Akuffo, K.O.; Osei Duah, I.; Bascaran, C. Situational Analysis of Diabetic Retinopathy Treatment Services in Ghana. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2021, 21, 584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Teo, Z.L.; Tham, Y.C.; Yu, M.; Cheng, C.Y.; Wong, T.Y.; Sabanayagam, C. Do We Have Enough Ophthalmologists to Manage Vision-Threatening Diabetic Retinopathy? A Global Perspective. Eye 2020, 34, 1255–1261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Bonora, E.; Cataudella, S.; Marchesini, G.; Miccoli, R.; Vaccaro, O.; Fadini, G.P.; Martini, N.; Rossi, E. Clinical Burden of Diabetes in Italy in 2018: A Look at a Systemic Disease from the ARNO Diabetes Observatory. BMJ Open Diab. Res. Care 2020, 8, e001191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Caro, J.J.; Ward, A.J.; O’Brien, J.A. Lifetime Costs of Complications Resulting from Type 2 Diabetes in the U.S. Diabetes Care 2002, 25, 476–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  44. Köster, I.; Von Ferber, L.; Ihle, P.; Schubert, I.; Hauner, H. The Cost Burden of Diabetes Mellitus: The Evidence from Germany—CoDiM Study. Diabetologia 2006, 49, 1498–1504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  45. Seuring, T.; Archangelidi, O.; Suhrcke, M. The Economic Costs of Type 2 Diabetes: A Global Systematic Review. Pharmacoeconomics 2015, 33, 811–831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Gillies, M.C.; Lim, L.L.; Campain, A.; Quin, G.J.; Salem, W.; Li, J.; Goodwin, S.; Aroney, C.; McAllister, I.L.; Fraser-Bell, S. A Randomized Clinical Trial of Intravitreal Bevacizumab versus Intravitreal Dexamethasone for Diabetic Macular Edema: The BEVORDEX Study. Ophthalmology 2014, 121, 2473–2481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Iovino, C.; Mastropasqua, R.; Lupidi, M.; Bacherini, D.; Pellegrini, M.; Bernabei, F.; Borrelli, E.; Sacconi, R.; Carnevali, A.; D’aloisio, R.; et al. Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant as a Sustained Release Drug Delivery Device for the Treatment of Ocular Diseases: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature. Pharmaceutics 2020, 12, 703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Muchira, J.; Stuart-shor, E.; Kariuki, J.; Mukuna, A.; Ndigirigi, I.; Gakage, L.; Mutuma, V.; Karani, A. International Journal of Africa Nursing Sciences Distribution and Characteristics of Risk Factors for Cardiovascular—Metabolic Disease in a Rural Kenyan Community. Int. J. Afr. Nurs. Sci. 2015, 3, 76–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Hertzberg, S.N.; Moe, M.C.; Jørstad, Ø.K.; Petrovski, B.É.; Burger, E.; Petrovski, G. Healthcare Expenditure of Intravitreal Anti-vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Inhibitors Compared with Dexamethasone Implant for Diabetic Macular Oedema. Acta Ophthalmol. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Berg, K.; Roald, A.B.; Navaratnam, J.; Bragadóttir, R. An 8-Year Follow-up of Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Treatment with a Treat-and-Extend Modality for Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration. Acta Ophthalmol. 2017, 95, 796–802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Okoye, O.; Okonkwo, O.; Oderinlo, O.; Hassan, K.; Ijasan, A. Bilateral Concomitant Intravitreal Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Injection: Experience in a Nigerian Tertiary Private Eye Care Facility. Niger. J. Clin. Pract. 2016, 19, 544–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Giocanti-Auregan, A.; Tadayoni, R.; Grenet, T.; Fajnkuchen, F.; Nghiem-Buffet, S.; Delahaye-Mazza, C.; Quentel, G.; Cohen, S.Y. Estimation of the Need for Bilateral Intravitreal Anti-VEGF Injections in Clinical Practice. BMC Ophthalmol. 2016, 16, 142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Eichenbaum, D.A.; Duerr, E.; Patel, H.R.; Pollack, S.M. Monthly Versus Treat-and-Extend Ranibizumab for Diabetic Macular Edema: A Prospective, Randomized Trial. Ophthalmic Surg. Lasers Imaging Retin. 2018, 49, 191–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Khalid, M.F.; Rosenberg, D.; Deonarain, D.M.; Phillips, M.R.; Thabane, L.; Kaiser, P.; Garg, S.; Sivaprasad, S.; Wykoff, C.C.; Chaudhary, V.; et al. Treat-and-Extend Versus Alternate Dosing Strategies with Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Agents to Treat Center Involving Diabetic Macular Edema: A Sys- Tematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 2346 Eyes. Surv. Ophthalmol. 2022, 67, 1346–1363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Wykoff, C.C.; Abreu, F.; Adamis, A.P.; Basu, K.; Eichenbaum, D.A.; Haskova, Z.; Lin, H.; Loewenstein, A.; Mohan, S.; Pearce, I.A.; et al. Efficacy, Durability, and Safety of Intravitreal Faricimab with Extended Dosing up to Every 16 Weeks in Patients with Diabetic Macular Oedema (YOSEMITE and RHINE): Two Randomised, Double-Masked, Phase 3 Trials. Lancet 2022, 399, 741–755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Chia, M.A.; Keane, P.A. Beyond Anti-VEGF: Can Faricimab Reduce Treatment Burden for Retinal Disease? Lancet 2022, 399, 697–699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Memon, S.; Ahsan, S.; Alvi, R.; Fawwad, A.; Basit, A.; Shera, S.; Sheikh, S.A.; Fahim, M.F. Retinal Screening Acceptance, Laser Treatment Uptake and Follow-up Response in Diabetics Requiring Laser Therapy in an Urban Diabetes Care Centre. J. Coll. Physicians Surg. Pak. 2015, 25, 743–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Kashim, R.M.; Newton, P.; Ojo, O. Diabetic Retinopathy Screening: A Systematic Review on Patients’ Non-Attendance. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Kilstad, H.N.; Sjølie, A.K.; Gøransson, L.; Hapnes, R.; Henschien, H.J.; Alsbirk, K.E.; Fossen, K.; Bertelsen, G.; Holstad, G.; Bergrem, H. Prevalence of Diabetic Retinopathy in Norway: Report from a Screening Study. Acta Ophthalmol. 2012, 90, 609–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Cai, C.X.; Li, Y.; Zeger, S.L.; McCarthy, M.L. Social Determinants of Health Impacting Adherence to Diabetic Retinopathy Examinations. BMJ Open Diabetes Res. Care 2021, 9, e002374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Kao, C.C.; Hsieh, H.M.; Lee, D.Y.; Hsieh, K.P.; Sheu, S.J. Importance of Medication Adherence in Treatment Needed Diabetic Retinopathy. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 19100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ijerph 19 12603 g001 550
Figure 1. The annual number of new patients and those being treated the previous year, discharged patients, and patients in total.
Figure 1. The annual number of new patients and those being treated the previous year, discharged patients, and patients in total.
Ijerph 19 12603 g001
Ijerph 19 12603 g002 550
Figure 2. Average percentage of treatments for diabetic retinopathy in patients receiving laser, intravitreal injection and/or vitreoretinal surgery.
Figure 2. Average percentage of treatments for diabetic retinopathy in patients receiving laser, intravitreal injection and/or vitreoretinal surgery.
Ijerph 19 12603 g002
Ijerph 19 12603 g003 550
Figure 3. Annual total healthcare cost of treating diabetic retinopathy per modality and total treatment costs.
Figure 3. Annual total healthcare cost of treating diabetic retinopathy per modality and total treatment costs.
Ijerph 19 12603 g003
Ijerph 19 12603 g004 550
Figure 4. Total costs per year of each intravitreal drug (A) and percentage of the total cost per year for each of those drugs (B).
Figure 4. Total costs per year of each intravitreal drug (A) and percentage of the total cost per year for each of those drugs (B).
Ijerph 19 12603 g004
Table
Table 1. Unit costs for diabetic retinopathy treatments in Norway.
Table 1. Unit costs for diabetic retinopathy treatments in Norway.
ItemUnit Cost in EUR (Excluding VAT)Source
DR treatment per treatment per patient
Laser164.2536R (The Norwegian Directorate of Health (DofH), 2021) [27]
Intravitreal injection137.45NoMA Unit cost database
Vitreoretinal Surgery8504.5936E (DofH, 2021) [27]
Visit to specialist cost70.22NoMA Unit cost database
Intraocular pressure measurement cost70.25NoMA Unit cost database
Intravitreal injection drugs per injection per patient
Bevacizumab38.24NoMA Drug cost database
Ranibizumab338.89NoMA Drug cost database
Aflibercept326.75NoMA Drug cost database
Dexamethasone implant1075.08NoMA Drug cost database
Patient time and transport
Transport cost per journey58.17NoMA Unit cost database
Patient time—cost per hour23.61NoMA Unit cost database
NoMA—Norwegian Medicines Agency 2020.
Table
Table 2. Average number of treatment procedures (standard error) per patient per year and the total number of patients treated per year for diabetic retinopathy.
Table 2. Average number of treatment procedures (standard error) per patient per year and the total number of patients treated per year for diabetic retinopathy.
20052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018Average 2005–2018
Laser1.09
(0.14)		1.81
(0.17)		1.87
(0.10)		1.88
(0.10)		1.65
(0.10)		1.72
(0.13)		1.04
(0.08)		1.24
(0.09)		1.04
(0.10)		1.38
(0.11)		1.07
(0.08)		0.95
(0.07)		0.64
(0.05)		0.54
(0.05)		2.2
(0.04)
Intravitreal injections0.08
(0.03)		0.02
(0.01)		0.10
(0.02)		0.16
(0.03)		0.35
(0.06)		0.70
(0.10)		1.95
(0.18)		2.05
(0.15)		2.74
(0.20)		2.78
(0.17)		3.20
(0.16)		4.33
(0.17)		4.36
(0.15)		4.73
(0.14)		4.7
(0.07)
Vitreoretinal surgery0.54
(0.06)		0.40
(0.05)		0.20
(0.03)		0.22
(0.03)		0.20
(0.03)		0.22
(0.03)		0.27
(0.04)		0.16
(0.02)		0.18
(0.03)		0.17
(0.03)		0.11
(0.02)		0.08
(0.01)		0.07
(0.01)		0.05
(0.01)		1.2
(0.02)
Treated patients91128260265217208249300315318405487580611
Table
Table 3. Average costs per patient per year in each treatment group.
Table 3. Average costs per patient per year in each treatment group.
YearTreatmentObserved Average (EUR)Bootstrapped Standard Error95% Confidence IntervalTotal Cost per Patient
2010Laser89959785–10142906
Intravitreal injection1116115892–1341
Vitreoretinal Surgery10,3485559261–11,436
2011Laser75043666–8333737
Intravitreal injection19771411701–2253
Vitreoretinal surgery10,8827339445–12,318
2012Laser84450747–9412935
Intravitreal injection1752941567–1937
Vitreoretinal surgery93083258672–9945
2013Laser86257751–9733592
Intravitreal injection26041462316–2891
Vitreoretinal surgery10,2265549140–11,312
2014Laser104361924–11613831
Intravitreal injection27741312517–3032
Vitreoretinal surgery12,18811689898–14,478
2015Laser97152868–10733518
Intravitreal injection29601152735–3184
Vitreoretinal surgery10,4386789109–11,766
2016Laser107352972–11743928
Intravitreal injection36451153419–3871
Vitreoretinal surgery97376078547–10,927
2017Laser88045792–9673664
Intravitreal injection34371033236–3638
Vitreoretinal surgery10,3776119180–11,573
2018Laser83641755–9173665
Intravitreal injection3442893268–3616
Vitreoretinal surgery10,3576709043–11,670
All values shown are rounded to the nearest Euro.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Hertzberg, S.N.W.; Jørstad, Ø.K.; Petrovski, B.É.; Bragadottir, R.; Steffensen, L.A.; Moe, M.C.; Burger, E.A.; Petrovski, G. Transition from Laser to Intravitreal Injections for Diabetic Retinopathy: Hospital Utilization and Costs from an Extended Healthcare Perspective. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 12603. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912603

AMA Style

Hertzberg SNW, Jørstad ØK, Petrovski BÉ, Bragadottir R, Steffensen LA, Moe MC, Burger EA, Petrovski G. Transition from Laser to Intravitreal Injections for Diabetic Retinopathy: Hospital Utilization and Costs from an Extended Healthcare Perspective. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(19):12603. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912603

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hertzberg, Silvia Nanjala Walekhwa, Øystein K. Jørstad, Beáta Éva Petrovski, Ragnheidur Bragadottir, Leif Arthur Steffensen, Morten Carstens Moe, Emily A. Burger, and Goran Petrovski. 2022. "Transition from Laser to Intravitreal Injections for Diabetic Retinopathy: Hospital Utilization and Costs from an Extended Healthcare Perspective" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 19: 12603. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912603

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop