Burden of diabetic macular oedema in patients receiving antivascular endothelial growth factor therapy in South Korea: a healthcare resource use and cost analysis.

Objective To examine healthcare resource utilisation (HRU) and direct medical costs for patients with diabetic macular oedema (DME) treated with antivascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) in Korea by comparing with those for (1) patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) without retinopathy and (2) patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) treated with anti-VEGF. Design Retrospective cohort study. Setting The Korean National Health Insurance (NHI) database from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2016. Participants We identified 1398 patients older than 30 years of age who received anti-VEGF treatment for DME in 2015 after excluding patients who had a diagnosis of nAMD in 2015 and any cancer in the preceding year. Main outcome measures One-year healthcare resource use and direct medical costs of patients with DME treated with anti-VEGF. Results In total, 1398 patients with DME receiving anti-VEGF, 12 813 patients with DM without retinopathy and 12 222 patients with nAMD receiving anti-VEGF were identified. Hospital admissions and outpatient visits were highest in patients with DME, while the number of licensed anti-VEGF injections in those with DME was about half that of those with nAMD (2.1 vs 3.9 per patient per year). Mean 1-year medical costs were also higher in patients with DME (US$6723) than in those with DM without retinopathy (US$2687) and nAMD (US$4980). In a multivariable analysis with matched cohorts, DME was associated with 66% higher medical costs for comorbid diseases (adjusted OR (aOR), 1.66; 95% CI 1.45 to 1.90) and 50% lower anti-VEGF injections (aOR, 0.50; 95% CI 0.46 to 0.54) compared with nAMD. Conclusions The overall HRU and economic burden for DME treated with anti-VEGF were higher than for DM without retinopathy or for nAMD treated with anti-VEGF. Meanwhile, the lower number of licensed anti-VEGF injections compared with nAMD may reflect a potential lack of ophthalmological treatment for DME supported by the NHI in Korea.