Skip to main content
Log in

Age-Related Macular Degeneration

Cost-of-Illness Issues

  • Leading Article
  • Published:
Drugs & Aging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Macular degeneration refers to the breakdown of cells in the centre of the retina. Some degeneration is an inevitable consequence of the aging process; however, when this is associated with loss of sight in the central part of the field of vision an underlying pathology is considered present. Among those aged 55 years, the prevalence of the disease in the US was estimated at 1% rising to approximately 15% among those aged 80 years. Other studies estimate the prevalence of the disease to be higher and to be increasing.

The main effect of the disease is to reduce the ability of the individual to engage in everyday activities that require clear central vision. It may also be associated with elevated risks of depression and increased levels of dependency. Currently there is no effective treatment for the majority of patients. For a minority (<10%) laser photocoagulation therapy may be effective in reducing the risk of severe vision loss. Another treatment, photodynamic therapy, is in development and many others are at an experimental stage.

This review sought to establish current knowledge on the cost of illness associated with age-related macular degeneration (ARMD). A search of the literature, together with direct communication with researchers in related fields and patient support/advocacy groups, was undertaken to ascertain current knowledge on the cost of illness of ARMD.

While literature on the disease is extensive and literature on treatments is emerging, no substantive information on direct or indirect costs was found although evidence that loss of earnings may occur is beginning to emerge. Some information does exist on cost of illness in diabetic retinopathy, a disease with similarities to ARMD, though even for this disease gaps in knowledge are apparent and wide variations exhibited. Given current knowledge, it is not possible to report on the cost of illness for ARMD with confidence. The lack of information on the cost of illness in ARMD presents difficulties for researchers and policy makers in assessing the cost effectiveness of the existing treatment, as well as new treatments as they become available. Given developments in treatments and the increasing prevalence of the disease, it is important that cost-of-illness information is gathered for ARMD.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Tielsch JA. Vision problems in the US: a report on blindness and visual impairment in adults age 40 and older. Schaumberg (IL): Prevent Blindness America, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  2. Chaine G, Hullo A, Sahel J, et al. Case control study of the risk factors for age-related macular degeneration. Br J Ophthalmol 1998; 82: 996–1002

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Evans J, Rooney C, Ashwood F, et al. Blindness and partial sight in England and Wales: April 1990–March 1991. Health Trends 1996; 28: 5–12

    Google Scholar 

  4. Munier A, Gunning T, Kenny D, et al. Causes of blindness in the adult population of the Republic of Ireland. Br J Ophthalmol 1998; 82: 630–3

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Podger MJ, Leske MC, Ederer F. Incidence estimates for lens changes, macular changes, open angle glaucoma and diabetic retinopathy. Am J Epidemiol 1983; 118: 206–12

    Google Scholar 

  6. Chan CW, Billson FA. Visual disability and major causes of blindness in NSW: a study of people aged 50 and over attending the Royal Blind Society 1984 to 1989. Aust N Z J Ophthalmol 1991; 19: 265–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Johnson GJ, Minassian DC. Prevalence of blindness and eye disease: discussion paper. J Royal Soc Med 1989; 82: 351–4

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Evans J, Wormald R. Is the incidence of registrable age-related macular degeneration increasing? Br J Ophthalmol 1996; 80: 9–14

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Klein R, Klein BEK, Linton KLP. Prevalence of age-related maculopathy: the Beaver Dam Eye Study. Ophthalmology 1992; 99: 933–45

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Klein R, Klein BEK, Jensen SC, et al. The five year incidence and progression of age-related maculopathy: the Beaver Dam Eye Study. Ophthalmology 1997; 104: 7–21

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination. Periodic health examination, 1995 update: 3. Screening for visual problems among elderly patients. CMAJ 1995; 152(8): 1211–22

    Google Scholar 

  12. Smiddy WE, Fine SL. Prognosis of patients with bilateral macular drusen. Ophthalmology 1984; 94: 271–7

    Google Scholar 

  13. Fine SL, Berger J, Maguire MG, et al. Age-related macular degeneration. N Engl J Med 2000; 342: 483–92

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Ferris FL. Senile macular degeneration: review of epidemiological features. Am J Epidemiol 1983; 118: 132–51

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Riordan-Eva P. Blindness. In: Vaughan D, Asbury T, Tabbara KF, editors. General ophthalmology. 12th ed. Norwalk (CO): Appleton and Lange, 1989: 384–8

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hart PM, Chakravarthy U, Stevenson MR, et al. A vision specific index for use in patients with age related macular degeneration. Br J Ophthalmol 1999; 83: 1115–20

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Marx MS, Werner P, Cohen-Mansfield J, et al. The relationship between low vision and performance of activities of daily living in nursing home residents. J Am Geriatr Assoc 1992; 40: 1018–20

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Park W. Vision rehabilitation for age-related macular degeneration. Int Ophthalmol Clin 1999; 39(4): 143–62

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Horowitz A. The prevalence and consequences of visual impairment among nursing home residents. New York: Monograph of the Lighthouse, International Publications, 1988

    Google Scholar 

  20. Wright SE, McCarty CA, Burgess M, et al. Vision impairment and handicap: The RVIB Employment Survey. The Steering Committee for the RVIB Employment Survey. Aust N Z J Ophthalmol 1999; 27(3–4): 204–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Lipsitz LA, Jonsson PV, Kelley MM, et al. Causes and correlates of recurrent falls in ambulatory frail elderly. J Gerontol 1991; 46(4): M114–22

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Dana MR, Tielsch JM, Enger C, et al. Visual impairment in a rural Appalachian community: prevalence and causes. JAMA 1990; 264(18): 2400–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Javitt JC. Cost savings associated with detection and treatment of diabetic eye disease. Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 8Suppl. 1: 33–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Phillips M, Del Rio I, Quiroz H. Opportunities for cost reduction in diabetic retinopathy treatment: case study from Mexico. Bull Pan Am Health Organ 1994 Mar; 28(1): 50–61

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Savolainen EA, Lee QP. Diabetic retinopathy: need and demand for photocoagulation and its cost-effectiveness: evaluation based on services in the United Kingdom. Diabetologia 1982; 23: 138–40

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Macular Photocoagulation Study Group. Argon laser photocoagulation for neovascular maculopathy: three-year results from randomised chnical trials. Arch Ophthalmol 1986; 104: 694–701

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Macular Photocoagulation Study Group. Krypton laser photocoagulation or neovascular lesions of age-related macular degeneration: results of a randomised clinical trial. Arch Ophthalmol 1990; 108: 816–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Macular Photocoagulation Study Group. Argon laser photocoagulation for neovascular maculopathy: five-year results from randomised clinical trials [published erratum appears in Arch Ophthalmol 1992; 110: 761]. Arch Ophthalmol 1991; 109: 1109–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Macular Photocoagulation Study Group. Laser photocoagulation for juxtafoveal choroidal neovascularisation: five-year results from randomised clinical trials. Arch Ophthalmol 1994; 112: 500–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Macular Photocoagulation Study Group. Laser photocoagulation for subfoveal neovascular lesions of age-related macular degeneration: updated findings from two clinical trials. Arch Ophthalmol 1993; 111: 1200–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Chong NHV, Bird AC. Alternative therapies in exudative age related macular degeneration. Br J Ophthalmol 1998; 82: 1441–3

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Freund KB, Yannuzzi LA, Sorenson JA, Age-related macular degeneration and choroidal neovascularisation. Am J Ophthalmol 1993; 115:786–91

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Macular Photocoagulation Study Group. Recurrent choroidal neovascularisation after argon laser photocoagulation for neovascular maculopathy. Arch Ophthalmol 1986; 104: 503–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Treatment of Age-Related Macular Degeneration with Photodynamic Therapy (TAP) Study Group. Photodynamic therapy of subfoveal choroidal neovascularisation in age-related macular degeneration with verteporfin: one year results of 2 randomised chnical trials. TAP report. Arch Ophthamol 1999; 117: 1329–45

    Google Scholar 

  35. Scott LJ, Goa KL. Verteporfin. Drugs Aging 2000; 16(2): 139–46

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Pharmacological Therapy for Macular Degeneration Study Group. Interferon Alfa-2a is ineffective for patients with choroidal neovascularisation secondary to age-related macular degeneration: results of prospective randomised clinical trial. Arch Ophthalmol 1997; 115: 865–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Bressler NM. Submacular surgery: are randomised trials necessary? Arch Ophthalmol 1995; 113: 557–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Bergink GJ, Hoyng CB, van der Maazen RWM, et al. A randomised clinical trial of the efficacy of radiation therapy in the control of subfoveal choroidal neovascularisation in age-related macular degeneration: radiation versus observation. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 1998; 236: 321–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Finger PT, Benson A, Sherr D, et al. Radiation therapy for subretinal neovascularisation. Ophthalmology 1996; 103: 878–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Churchill AJ, Franks WA, Ash DV. An alternative and more cost-effective method of delivery of radiotherapy in age related macular degeneration. Br J Ophthalmol 1998; 82: 373–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Regillo CD, Benson WE, Maguire JI, et al. Indocyanine green angiography and occult choroidal neovascularisation. Ophthalmology 1994; 101: 280–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Slakter JS, Yannuzzi LA, Sorenson JA, et al. A pilot study of indocyanine green videoangiography-guided laser photocoagulation of occult choroidal neovascularisation in age-related macular degeneration. Arch Ophthalmol 1994; 112; 465–72

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Machemer R, Steinhorst UH. Retinal separation, retinotomy and macular relocation. I. Experimental studies in the rabbit eye. Grafes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 1993; 231: 629–34

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. De Juan Jr E, Lowenstein A, Bressler NM, et al. Translocation of the retina for management of subfoveal choroidal neovascularisation. II. A preliminary report in humans. Am J Ophthalmol 1998; 125: 635–46

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Rizzo III JR, Wyatt J. Prospects for a visual prosthesis. Neuroscientist 1997; 3: 251–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Humayun MS, de Juan Jr E, Dagnelie G, et al. Visual perception elicited by electrical stimulation of retina in blind humans. Arch Ophthalmol 1996; 114: 40–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Bennett J, Maguire AM. Gene therapy. In: Berger JW, Fine SL, Maguire MG, editors. Age-related macular degeneration. St Louis (MO): Mosby, 1999: 395–412

    Google Scholar 

  48. Kaplan HJ, Tezel TH, Berger AS, et al. Human photoreceptor transplantation in retinitis pigmentosa: a safety study. Arch Ophthalmol 1997; 115: 1168–72

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Drummond MF. Cost-of-illness studies: a major headache? Pharmacoeconomics 1992; 2: 1–4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Rice DP. Estimating the costs of illness. Washington, DC.: Government Printing Office, 1966. Health Economic Services PHS publication no. 947-6

    Google Scholar 

  51. Garrett SK, Thomas AP, Cicuttini F, et al. Community-based recruitment strategies for a longitudinal interventional study: the VECAT experience. J Clin Epidemiol 2000; 53(5): 541–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Brown MM, Brown GC, Sharma S, et al. Evidence-based medicine, utilities, and quality of life. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 1999; 10(3): 221–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Crijns H, Casparie AF, Hendrikse F. Continuous computer simulation analysis of the cost-effectiveness of screening and treating diabetic retinopathy. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1999; 15(1): 198–206

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Mehta MP, Kinsella TJ. What’s new in radiation oncology. Wis Med J 1997; 96(4): 42–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Peters AL, Davidson MB, Ziel FH. Cost-effective screening for diabetic retinopathy using a nonmydriatic retinal camera in a prepaid health-care setting. Diabetes Care 1993; 16(8): 1193–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Javitt JC, Canner JK, Sommer A. Cost effectiveness of current approaches to the control of retinopathy in type I diabetics. Opthamology 1989; 96(2): 255–64

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Evans TG, Ranson MK, Kyaw TA, et al. Cost effectiveness and cost utility of preventing trachomatous visual impairment: lessons from 30 years of trachoma control in Burma. Br J Ophthalmol 1996; 80(10): 880–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Evans TG, Ranson MK. The global burden of trachomatous visual impairment: II. Assessing burden. Int Ophthalmol 1995–96; 19(5): 271–80

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Schenk-Rootlieb AJ, Van Nieuwenhuizen O, Schiemanck N, et al. Impact of cerebral visual impairment on the everyday life of cerebral palsied children. Child Care Health Dev 1993; 19(6): 411–23

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Krumpaszky HG, Klauss V, Kloske G. Social costs of visual handicap and blindness: rehabilitation resources for blind patients. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 1992; 201(6): 370–4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Jacques PF. The potential preventive effects of vitamins for cataract and age-related macular degeneration. Int J Vitam Nutr Res 1999; 69(3): 198–205

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Hua KH, Cockrum PC, Von Tress MS, et al. Societal impact of lost earnings associated with age-related maculopathy [poster]. International Society for Pharmaeconomics and Outcomes Research. 3rd Annual European Conference; 2000 Nov 5–7; Antwerp

  63. Fendrick AM, Javitt JC, Chaing YP. Cost effectiveness of the screening and treatinent of diabetic retinopathy: what are the costs of under-utilisation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1992; 8(4): 694–707

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Davitt JC, Aiello LP, Chaing YP, et al. Preventative eye care in people with diabetes is cost-saving to the Federal Government: implications for health-care reform. Diabetes Care 1994; 17(8): 909–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Dasbach EJ, Fryback DG, Newcomb PA, et al. Cost effectiveness of strategies for detecting diabetic retinopathy. Med Care 1991; 29(1): 20–39

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. James M, Turner DA, Broadbent DM, et al. Cost effectiveness analysis of screening for sight threatening diabetic eye disease. BMJ 2000; 320: 1627–31

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Brown GC, Sharma S, Brown MM, et al. Utility values and age-related macular degeneration. Arch Ophthalmol 2000; 118(1): 47–51

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the helpful comments of Professor Chakravarthy (Queens University Belfast) in the preparation of this manuscript. All remaining errors and omissions are those of the authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ciaran O’Neill.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

O’Neill, C., Jamison, J., McCulloch, D. et al. Age-Related Macular Degeneration. Drugs & Aging 18, 233–241 (2001). https://doi.org/10.2165/00002512-200118040-00001

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00002512-200118040-00001

Keywords

Navigation