1. Dry eye disease (DED) is a common disorder that affects the tears and ocular surface, with global prevalence estimates ranging from 5-50%. The main risk factors for DED include older age, female sex, contact lens use, medications, medical conditions, computer use and environmental exposures.
2. Treatment of DED involves lifestyle changes, tear substitutes and pharmacological therapy. Over-the-counter tear substitutes may be effective in mild to moderate DED, while prescribed topical pharmacological therapy may be more effective for patients with severe disease and for long-term management.
3. Limited data are available on the clinical and economic burden of DED in Germany. This retrospective cohort study aimed to estimate the prevalence and incidence of DED by year (2008-2015), describe treatment patterns prior to and following a diagnosis of DED, measure the occurrence and type of surgery following a diagnosis of DED, and quantify healthcare resource use (HCRU) and total costs associated with a diagnosis of DED in Germany using administrative claims data of approximately 3.6 million German patients with statutory health insurance.
The article provides a comprehensive overview of the burden of dry eye disease (DED) in Germany, using retrospective observational data from German claims. The study aims to estimate the prevalence and incidence of DED, describe treatment patterns, measure healthcare resource use and total costs associated with DED diagnosis in Germany.
The article presents a balanced view of the epidemiology and burden of DED in Germany, highlighting the multifactorial nature of the disease and its impact on patients' quality of life. However, there are some potential biases and limitations to consider.
One limitation is that the study relies on administrative claims data, which may not accurately reflect actual patient outcomes or treatment patterns. For example, there is no information on whether patients actually used dispensed prescriptions or OTC medications. Additionally, the study only captures patients with SHI, which may not be representative of the entire German population.
Another potential bias is that the study does not explore counterarguments or alternative perspectives on DED diagnosis and treatment. For example, while the article mentions lifestyle changes as a potential treatment option for mild to moderate DED, it does not provide specific recommendations or evidence-based guidelines for these changes.
Furthermore, while the article notes that certain risk factors play a larger role in certain regions than others, it does not provide specific information on regional differences in DED prevalence or treatment patterns within Germany.
Overall, while the article provides valuable insights into the burden of DED in Germany based on claims data analysis, it is important to consider its limitations and potential biases when interpreting its findings.