In the Result subsection of the Abstract, there are errors in the paragraph. The correct paragraph is: The annual additional total direct costs were EUR 2,658/glaucoma patient, EUR 1,768/glaucoma patient with medication, and EUR 3,975/operated glaucoma patient compared with persons without glaucoma. The respective additional total indirect costs were EUR 4,035, EUR 3,054, and EUR 12,141 per year. In total, the additional annual direct and indirect expenditures associated with glaucoma in Finland were EUR 202 million (0.86% of total expenditures of health care) and EUR 67 million (0.03% of the Finnish gross domestic product) arising mainly from non-eye-related hospitalizations and productivity losses, respectively.

In the Introduction, there is an error in the third sentence of the first paragraph. The correct sentence is: In Finland, there are over 80,000 glaucoma patients, of which approximately 8% are visually impaired with visual acuity (VA) lower than 0.3 (Snellen decimals) [2,3].

In the Cost analysis subsection of the Materials and methods, there is an error in the ninth sentence of the first paragraph. The correct sentence is: The unit costs do not include the customer fees as our focus was on societal costs.

In the Results, there is an error in the fourth and fifth sentences of the third paragraph. The correct sentences are: The share of eye-related expenses was 12.8% of the age- and sex-adjusted additional expenditure and 2.7% of the non-adjusted additional expenditure among the glaucomatous population. The additional adjusted expenditures were EUR 100 million (non-adjusted EUR 521 million) among glaucoma patients treated with medication and EUR 91 million (non-adjusted EUR 345 million) among operated glaucoma patients.

In the Results, there is an error in the eighth sentence of the third paragraph. The correct sentence is: Most of the direct expenditures came from hospitalizations: 83.4% of adjusted costs (non-adjusted 82.3%) among glaucoma negatives, 78.9% (non-adjusted 91.2%) among glaucoma patients, 81.5% (non-adjusted 89.5%) among glaucoma patients treated with medication, and 73.9% (non-adjusted 90.9%) among operated glaucoma patients.

In the Results, there is an error in the fifth to seventh sentences of the fourth paragraph. The correct sentences are: However, at the population level, glaucoma was associated with a total additional expenditure of EUR 67 million per year in comparison to glaucoma negatives at the 2019 cost level. The additional expenditures were EUR 38 million among glaucoma patients treated with medication and EUR 59 million among operated glaucoma patients. Productivity losses comprised majority (69.1%) of the total indirect expenditures in all groups.

In the Results, there is an error in the second and third sentences of the sixth paragraph. The correct sentences are: Only operated glaucoma showed statistically significant association with total indirect costs compared with glaucoma negatives after adjusting for these predictors (additional indirect costs EUR21,658; p = 0.019). When sex and non-eye-related co-morbidities were set constant and age at the average of the glaucomatous population below age of 65 years in Finland (55.3 years), the mean annual total indirect costs were EUR 31,730 (95% CI 19,628–43,832) for a glaucoma patient, EUR 31,971 (95% CI 18,038–45,904) for a glaucoma patient with medical treatment, and EUR 46,303 (95% CI 19,912–72,694) for an operated glaucoma patient at the 2019 cost level.

In the Results, there is an error in the third sentence of the seventh paragraph. The correct sentence is: A strong negative association between vision and costs was observed regardless of whether a person has glaucoma or not: correlation coefficients in the studied groups ranged from -0.24 to -0.36 regarding direct costs and from -0.16 to -0.67 regarding indirect costs.

In the Discussion, there is an error in the third sentence of the second paragraph. The correct sentence is: In the present study, the adjusted direct additional expenditures associated with glaucoma corresponded to 0.86% (EUR 201,931,493) of this cost.

In the Discussion, there is an error in the sixth sentence of the fifth paragraph. The correct sentence is: When adding the direct eye-related treatment costs in our study (EUR 387 per patient), the average annual glaucoma treatment cost per medicated glaucoma patient at 2019-level would be EUR 739, 48% consisting of medication costs, which is within the range of previous glaucoma resource utilization studies.

In the Discussion, there is an error in the third sentence of the sixth paragraph. The correct sentence is: Although this difference was not statistically significant, it becomes particularly noticeable when costs are considered: even after adjusting for age and sex, the annual total direct costs are EUR 2,207 (31.1%) higher for an operated patient than medicated patient.

In the Discussion, there is an error in the fifth sentence of the sixth paragraph. The correct sentence is: The annual indirect costs for an operated patient are EUR 9,087 (49.5%) higher compared with a medicated patient.

In the Discussion, there is an error in the third sentence of the eighth paragraph. The correct sentence is: Additional productivity losses caused by glaucoma alone corresponded to 0.03% (EUR67,032,633) of the product that year.

In the Discussion, there is an error in the first sentence of the 12^th paragraph. The correct sentence is: In conclusion, we report annual direct and indirect additional expenditures of EUR 201,931,493 and EUR 67,032,633 among glaucomatous population in Finland.

The Tables 4 to 6 are incorrect. Please see the correct Tables 4 to 6 here.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 4. Mean annual direct health care costs in the Finnish population aged 30 years and older at the 2019 cost level.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318723.t001

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 5. Mean indirect costs in the Finnish population aged 30–64 years at the 2019 cost level.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318723.t002

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 6. Multivariable regression analysis examining the impact of glaucoma, age, sex, and non-eye-related co-morbidities on total annual indirect costs in population aged 30–64 years at the 2019 cost level.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318723.t003

Tweedie distribution using gamma with log link scale response was applied to the model. The analysis was based on participants with information available for all predictors (n = 1688–1710). The age was standardized for the average age of glaucomatous population in Finland under 65 years of age (55.3 years) for the marginal means and contrasts. Marginal mean contrasts equal the difference between those with a medical condition (or of male sex) and those without a medical condition (or of female sex) standardized for all other factors. Statistical significance was calculated for both the B coefficients and marginal mean contrast.

In Fig 3, the diagram B is incorrect. Please see the correct Fig 3 here.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 3.

Association between average distance visual acuity (VA) and total annual direct costs (A) and indirect costs (B) among glaucoma patients and glaucoma negatives at the 2019 cost level. Direct costs were evaluated in population aged 30 years and older, and indirect costs in population aged 30–64 years.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318723.g001

The S1, S2 and S4 Tables are incorrect. Please view the correct S1, S2 and S4 Tables below.