Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

PURPOSE: To estimate the direct ophthalmic healthcare resource use in patients with geographic atrophy (GA) secondary to age-related macular degeneration (AMD). DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of anonymized data derived from electronic medical records (EMRs) acquired at 10 clinical sites in the United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged ≥50 years with ≥1 eye with a clinical record of GA or, for comparison, bilateral early/intermediate AMD. Four subgroups were identified: GA in both eyes (GA:GA); GA in 1 eye, choroidal neovascularization (CNV) in the fellow eye (GA:CNV); GA in 1 eye with early or intermediate AMD in the fellow eye (GA:E); and early/intermediate AMD in both eyes (E:E). METHODS: The EMRs were analyzed to derive the median number of visits over the first 2 years after diagnosis of GA or early/intermediate AMD. Clinical tests recorded at visits were used to calculate estimated costs (payer perspective) of monitoring. Analyses were restricted to patients with an initial diagnosis on or after January 1, 2011, to represent present day monitoring and costs associated with AMD. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Median number of visits and estimated monitoring costs per patient (in £) over the first 2 years among patients with ≥2 years of follow-up and in the individual subgroups. Intravitreal treatment costs in the GA:CNV group were excluded. RESULTS: For all 3 GA subgroups (n = 1080), the median number of visits over the first 2 years was 5, and monitoring costs were £460.80 per patient. The GA:CNV subgroup (n = 355) had the highest number of visits (median, 15), with a cost of £1581, compared with the GA:E subgroup (n = 283; median 4 visits; cost ∼£369) and the GA:GA subgroup (n = 442; median 3 visits; cost ∼£277). Ophthalmic tests were conducted most frequently in the GA:CNV subgroup. Visits and costs in the E:E subgroup (n = 6079) were lower. CONCLUSIONS: Resource use in patients with GA varies considerably and is strongly influenced by the concomitant presence of CNV and lack of monitoring strategies for GA.

Original publication




Journal article


Ophthalmol Retina

Publication Date





920 - 926