We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Diabetic Macular Edema (DME) is an important complication of Diabetic Retinopathy (DR). Intravitreal steroids in slow-release systems represent a safe and effective therapeutic option for the management of DME, capable of improving patients’ quality of life by reducing the number of injections thus increasing the therapeutic adherence and the effectiveness of the treatment. This study aims to determine the economic impact of DME and the consequences, in terms of both expenditure and organizational impact, associated with a greater use of the intravitreal dexamethasone implant.
Methods
The analysis entailed the comparison between two scenarios: a first scenario based on the current use of therapeutic alternatives available in the Italian healthcare setting (as is) and an alternative scenario based on the assumption of an increased use of intravitreal dexamethasone implant (to be). The results of the analysis are expressed in terms of resource absorption associated with the two scenarios as well as in terms of the cost differential given by their comparison.
Results
Despite an increase in expenditure in terms of acquisition costs of pharmacological alternatives (EUR 898,362) and interventions provided (EUR 22,093,160), the greater use of prolonged-release dexamethasone allows for significant savings in terms of healthcare professionals’ time, follow-up and productivity losses incurred by patient/caregiver. These reductions in healthcare costs resulted in a saving of EUR 1,987,678 over a 5-year period. Such a reduction would allow, considering a total annual management cost of EUR 6,115 for the intravitreal dexamethasone, to treat 325 more patients at the same cost of the as is scenario based on the current rate of use of dexamethasone.
Conclusions
In a context characterized by the need to increase the allocative efficiency of economic resources, the recourse to therapeutic alternatives, such as prolonged release dexamethasone, allowing the reduction of costs for the management of a given pathology is crucial to generate more value for patients and the entire society.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.