Patient-Centered Economic Burden of Diabetic Macular Edema: Retrospective Cohort Study
Kyungseon Choi,Sang Jun Park,Hyuna Yoon,Seoyoon Choi,Yongseok Mun,Seok Kim,Sooyoung Yoo,Se Joon Woo,Kyu Hyung Park,Junghyun Na,Hae Sun Suh
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/56741
2024-10-08
Abstract:Background: Diabetic macular edema (DME), a leading cause of blindness, requires treatment with costly drugs, such as anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents. The prolonged use of these effective but expensive drugs results in an incremental economic burden for patients with DME compared with those with diabetes mellitus (DM) without DME. However, there are no studies on the long-term patient-centered economic burden of DME after reimbursement for anti-VEGFs. Objective: This retrospective cohort study aims to estimate the 3-year patient-centered economic burden of DME compared with DM without DME, using the Common Data Model. Methods: We used medical data from 1,903,603 patients (2003-2020), transformed and validated using the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model from Seoul National University Bundang Hospital. We defined the group with DME as patients aged >18 years with nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy and intravitreal anti-VEGF or steroid prescriptions. As control, we defined the group with DM without DME as patients aged >18 years with DM or diabetic retinopathy without intravitreal anti-VEGF or steroid prescriptions. Propensity score matching, performed using a regularized logistic regression with a Laplace prior, addressed selection bias. We estimated direct medical costs over 3 years categorized into total costs, reimbursement costs, nonreimbursement costs, out-of-pocket costs, and costs covered by insurance, as well as healthcare resource utilization. An exponential conditional model and a count model estimated unbiased incremental patient-centered economic burden using generalized linear models and a zero-inflation model. Results: In a cohort of 454 patients with DME matched with 1640 patients with DM, the economic burden of DME was significantly higher than that of DM, with total costs over 3 years being 2.09 (95% CI 1.78-2.47) times higher. Reimbursement costs were 1.89 (95% CI 1.57-2.28) times higher in the group with DME than with the group with DM, while nonreimbursement costs were 2.54 (95% CI 2.12-3.06) times higher. Out-of-pocket costs and costs covered by insurance were also higher by a factor of 2.11 (95% CI 1.58-2.59) and a factor of 2.01 (95% CI 1.85-2.42), respectively. Patients with DME had a significantly higher number of outpatient (1.87-fold) and inpatient (1.99-fold) visits compared with those with DM (P<.001 in all cases). Conclusions: Patients with DME experience a heightened economic burden compared with diabetic patients without DME. The substantial and enduring economic impact observed in real-world settings underscores the need to alleviate patients' burden through preventive measures, effective management, appropriate reimbursement policies, and the development of innovative treatments. Strategies to mitigate the economic impact of DME should include proactive approaches such as expanding anti-VEGF reimbursement criteria, approving and reimbursing cost-effective drugs such as bevacizumab, advocating for proactive eye examinations, and embracing early diagnosis by ophthalmologists facilitated by cutting-edge methodologies such as artificial intelligence for patients with DM.