Ana Patrícia Marques

There is extensive evidence showing that improving eye health contributes directly and indirectly to achieving many Sustainable Development Goals, including reducing poverty and improving work productivity, general and mental health, and education and equity. Improving eye health is a practical and cost-effective way of unlocking human potential. Eye health needs to be reframed as an enabling, cross-cutting issue within the sustainable development framework.

BACKGROUND: In the absence of accessible, good quality eye health services and inclusive environments, vision loss can impact individuals, households and communities in many ways, including through increased poverty, reduced quality of life and reduced employment. We aimed to estimate the annual potential productivity losses associated with reduced employment due to blindness and moderate and severe vision impairment (MSVI) at a regional and global level. METHODS: We constructed a model using the most recent economic, demographic (2018) and prevalence (2020) data. Calculations were limited to the working age population (15-64 years) and presented in 2018 US Dollars purchasing power parity (ppp). Two separate models, using Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and Gross National Income (GNI), were calculated to maximise comparability with previous estimates. FINDINGS: We found that 160.7 million people with MSVI or blindness were within the working age and estimated that the overall relative reduction in employment by people with vision loss was 30.2%. Globally, using GDP we estimated that the annual cost of potential productivity losses of MSVI and blindness was $410.7 billion ppp (range $322.1 - $518.7 billion), or 0.3% of GDP. Using GNI, overall productivity losses were estimated at $408.5 billion ppp (range $320.4 - $515.9 billion), 0.5% lower than estimates using GDP. INTERPRETATION: These findings support the view that blindness and MSVI are associated with a large economic impact worldwide. Reducing and preventing vision loss and developing and implementing strategies to help visually impaired people to find and keep employment may result in significant productivity gains. FUNDING: Commission on Global Eye Health was supported by grants from The Queen Elizabeth Diamond Jubilee Trust, Moorfields Eye Charity (GR001061), NIHR Moorfields Biomedical Research Centre, The Wellcome Trust, Sightsavers, The Fred Hollows Foundation, The SEVA Foundation, The British Council for the Prevention of Blindness and Christian Blind Mission. The funders had no role in the design, conduct, data analysis of the study, or writing of the manuscript.

Vision impairment (VI) can have wide ranging economic impact on individuals, households, and health systems. The aim of this systematic review was to describe and summarise the costs associated with VI and its major causes. We searched MEDLINE (16 November 2019), National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and the Health Technology Assessment database (12 December 2019) for partial or full economic evaluation studies, published between 1 January 2000 and the search dates, reporting cost data for participants with VI due to an unspecified cause or one of the seven leading causes globally: cataract, uncorrected refractive error, diabetic retinopathy, glaucoma, age-related macular degeneration, corneal opacity, trachoma. The search was repeated on 20 January 2022 to identify studies published since our initial search. Included studies were quality appraised using the British Medical Journal Checklist for economic submissions adapted for cost of illness studies. Results were synthesized in a structured narrative. Of the 138 included studies, 38 reported cost estimates for VI due to an unspecified cause and 100 reported costs for one of the leading causes. These 138 studies provided 155 regional cost estimates. Fourteen studies reported global data; 103/155 (66%) regional estimates were from highincome countries. Costs were most commonly reported using a societal (n = 48) or healthcare system perspective (n = 25). Most studies included only a limited number of cost components. Large variations in methodology and reporting across studies meant cost estimates varied considerably. The average quality assessment score was 78% (range 35-100%); the most common weaknesses were the lack of sensitivity analysis and insufficient disaggregation of costs. There was substantial variation across studies in average treatment costs per patient for most conditions, including refractive error correction (range $12-$201 ppp), cataract surgery (range $54-$3654 ppp), glaucoma (range $351-$1354 ppp) and AMD (range $2209-$7524 ppp). Future cost estimates of the economic burden of VI and its major causes will be improved by the development and adoption of a reference case for eye health. This could

BACKGROUND: Glaucoma is a major cause of sight loss worldwide, with the highest regional prevalence and incidence reported in Africa. The most common low-cost treatment used to control glaucoma is long-term timolol eye drops. However, low adherence is a major challenge. We aimed to investigate whether selective laser trabeculoplasty (SLT) was superior to timolol eye drops for controlling intraocular pressure (IOP) in patients with open-angle glaucoma. METHODS: We did a two-arm, parallel-group, single-masked randomised controlled trial at the Eye Department of Kilimanjaro Christian Medical Centre, Moshi, Tanzania. Eligible participants (aged ≥18 years) had open-angle glaucoma and an IOP above 21 mm Hg, and did not have asthma or a history of glaucoma surgery or laser. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 0·5% timolol eye drops to administer twice daily or to receive SLT. The primary outcome was the proportion of eyes from both groups with treatment success, defined as an IOP below or equal to target pressure according to glaucoma severity, at 12 months following randomisation. Re-explanation of eye drop application or a repeat SLT was permitted once. The primary analysis was by modified intention-to-treat, excluding participants lost to follow-up, using logistic regression; generalised estimating equations were used to adjust for the correlation between eyes. This trial was registered with the Pan African Clinical Trials Registry, number PACTR201508001235339. FINDINGS: 840 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 201 (24%) participants (382 eligible eyes) were enrolled between Aug 31, 2015, and May 12, 2017. 100 (50%) participants (191 eyes) were randomly assigned to the timolol group and 101 (50%; 191 eyes) to the SLT group. After 1 year, 339 (89%) of 382 eyes were analysed. Treatment was successful in 55 (31%) of 176 eyes in the timolol group (16 [29%] of 55 eyes required repeat administration counselling) and in 99 (61%) of 163 eyes in the SLT group (33 [33%] of 99 eyes required repeat SLT; odds ratio 3·37 [95% CI 1·96-5·80]; p<0·0001). Adverse events (mostly unrelated to ocular events) occurred in ten (10%) participants in the timolol group and in eight (8%) participants in the SLT group (p=0·61). INTERPRETATION: SLT was superior to timolol eye drops for managing patients with open-angle high-pressure glaucoma for 1 year in Tanzania. SLT has the potential to transform the management of glaucoma in sub-Saharan Africa, even where the prevalence of advanced glaucoma is high. FUNDING: Christian Blind Mission, Seeing is Believing Innovation Fund, and the Wellcome Trust. TRANSLATIONS: For the Kiswahili, French and Portuguese translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Abstract Purpose Generic instruments to assess health utilities can be used to express the burden of health problems in widely used indexes. That is in contrast with what can be obtained with condition‐specific instruments, outcomes are very specific and difficult to compare across conditions. The purpose of this study was to assess health and visual outcomes and its determinants in patients with visual impairment ( VI ) using the EQ ‐5D‐3L and the Activity Inventory ( AI ). Methods Participants were recruited in different hospitals during the PCVIP ‐study. A total of 134 patients with acuity 0.30 logMAR or less in the better eye were interviewed. The AI includes 46 goals split between three objectives: social functioning, recreation and daily living, and was used to measure visual ability. The EQ ‐5D consists of five questions covering one domain each and was used to provide a measure of health states. Responses to each domain were combined to produce a single individual index. Results The AI and the EQ ‐5D‐3L showed enough discriminatory power between VI levels (p &lt; 0.001), and their results were strongly correlated r (134) = 0.825, (p &lt; 0.001). Explanatory factors for visual ability were level of VI in better eye, age and gender, R 2 = 0.43, (p &lt; 0.001). Explanatory factors for the EQ ‐5D‐3L were level of VI in the better eye, comorbidities and gender, R 2 = 0.36, (p &lt; 0.001). Conclusion Our results showed that the EQ ‐5D‐3L is useful when characterizing the burden of VI and to compute, when necessary, quality‐adjusted‐life‐years ( QALY ) changes due to VI . However, it is important to consider that the EQ ‐5D‐3L uses a coarse response scale, assesses a limited spectrum of domains and is influenced by comorbidities. This might limit its responsiveness to small changes in visual ability.