Patient-Centered Economic Burden of Exudative Age-Related Macular Degeneration: Retrospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Exudative age-related macular degeneration (AMD), one of the leading causes of blindness, requires expensive drugs such as anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents. The long-term regular use of effective but expensive drugs causes an economic burden for patients with exudative AMD. However, there are no studies on the long-term patient-centered economic burden of exudative AMD after reimbursement of anti-VEGFs. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the patient-centered economic burden of exudative AMD for 2 years, including nonreimbursement and out-of-pocket costs, compared with nonexudative AMD using the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) Common Data Model (CDM). METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was conducted using the OMOP CDM, which included 2,006,478 patients who visited Seoul National University Bundang Hospital from June 2003 to July 2019. We defined the exudative AMD group as patients aged >50 years with a diagnosis of exudative AMD and a prescription for anti-VEGFs or verteporfin. The control group was defined as patients aged >50 years without a diagnosis of exudative AMD or a prescription for anti-VEGFs or verteporfin. To adjust for selection bias, controls were matched by propensity scores using regularized logistic regression with a Laplace prior. We measured any medical cost occurring in the hospital as the economic burden of exudative AMD during a 2-year follow-up period using 4 categories: total medical cost, reimbursement cost, nonreimbursement cost, and out-of-pocket cost. To estimate the average cost by adjusting the confounding variable and overcoming the positive skewness of costs, we used an exponential conditional model with a generalized linear model. RESULTS: We identified 931 patients with exudative AMD and matched 783 (84.1%) with 2918 patients with nonexudative AMD. In the exponential conditional model, the total medical, reimbursement, nonreimbursement, and out-of-pocket incremental costs were estimated at US $3426, US $3130, US $366, and US $561, respectively, in the first year and US $1829, US $1461, US $373, and US $507, respectively, in the second year. All incremental costs in the exudative AMD group were 1.89 to 4.25 and 3.50 to 5.09 times higher in the first and second year, respectively, than those in the control group (P<.001 in all cases). CONCLUSIONS: Exudative AMD had a significantly greater economic impact (P<.001) for 2 years on reimbursement, nonreimbursement, and out-of-pocket costs than nonexudative AMD after adjusting for baseline demographic and clinical characteristics using the OMOP CDM. Although economic policies could relieve the economic burden of patients with exudative AMD over time, the out-of-pocket cost of exudative AMD was still higher than that of nonexudative AMD for 2 years. Our findings support the need for expanding reimbursement strategies for patients with exudative AMD given the significant economic burden faced by patients with incurable and fatal diseases both in South Korea and worldwide.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".