Author
Listed:
- Sara W. Quist
(University of Groningen, University Medical Center
Asc Academics B.V.)
- Sophie te Dorsthorst
(Radboud University Medical Center)
- Roel D. Freriks
(Asc Academics B.V.
University of Twente)
- Maarten J. Postma
(University of Groningen, University Medical Center
University of Groningen)
- Carel B. Hoyng
(Radboud University Medical Center)
- Freekje Asten
(Radboud University Medical Center
Maastricht University Medical Center+)
Abstract
Objective Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) effectively treats autoimmune diseases but prolonged use may lead to retinopathy and subsequent vision loss. Guidelines suggest annual follow-up after 5 years for low-risk and 1 year for high-risk patients. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of current screening guidelines and a reduced regimen in the Netherlands from a societal perspective. Methods A Markov model assessed costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for current and reduced screening regimens. The model included 359 HCQ-treated patients from Radboud University Medical Center. Cost-effectiveness was examined in the general population and patients using 6.0 mg/kg HCQ per day for several reduced regimens. Results Compared to no screening, the current screening guideline saves costs (i.e., €210 per patient), while gaining QALYs (i.e., 0.79 QALY per patient) over a lifetime in the Netherlands. However, in patients receiving 6.0 mg/kg per day, initiating annual screening with an SD-OCT after 5 years was more cost-effective than the current guideline. Conclusions Screening for HCQ retinopathy is cost-effective, but delayed initiation and a reduced frequency, using solely an SD-OCT, are more cost-effective. We recommend screening with an SD-OCT and a biennial regimen after 10 years for low-risk patients, an annual regimen after 5 years for intermediate- and high-risk patients.
Suggested Citation
Sara W. Quist & Sophie te Dorsthorst & Roel D. Freriks & Maarten J. Postma & Carel B. Hoyng & Freekje Asten, 2025.
"Cost-effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine retinopathy screening: the current guideline versus no screening and reduced regimens,"
The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 26(3), pages 413-425, April.
Handle:
RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:26:y:2025:i:3:d:10.1007_s10198-024-01715-w
DOI: 10.1007/s10198-024-01715-w
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:26:y:2025:i:3:d:10.1007_s10198-024-01715-w. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.