Source
Department of Ophthalmology, Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida. Electronic address: wsmiddy@med.miami.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE:
To apply cost-benefit analyses in specific circumstances in which the results of multiple modalities of treating diabetic macular edema (DME) are similar, as a basis for considering economic ramifications in clinically relevant applications.
DESIGN:
A model of resource use, outcomes, and cost-effectiveness and utility.
PARTICIPANTS:
There were no participants.
METHODS:
Results from published clinical trials (index studies) of laser, intravitreal corticosteroids, intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents, and vitrectomy trials were used to ascertain visual benefit and clinical protocols of patients with DME. Calculations followed from the costs of 1 year of treatment for each modality and the visual benefits as ascertained.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:
Visual acuity (VA) saved, cost of therapy, cost per line saved, cost per line-year saved, and costs per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) saved.
RESULTS:
Four specific situations were observed or analyzed: (1) Treatment results for DME causing VA loss less then twenty over two hundred. at least as much visual benefit for intravitreal triamcinolone versus laser; a subgroup analysis of pseudophakic DME eyes shows equivalent visual results with anti-VEGF treatment versus laser combined with IVTA, eyes with VA of greater then or equal to twenty over thirty two, have been studied only by laser; and (4) less frequent use of aflibercept yields equivalent visual results as more frequent treatment. When the results are equivalent, opting for the less-expensive treatment option could yield cost savings of forty percent to eighty eight percent..
CONCLUSIONS:
Cost-effectiveness analyses can be clinically relevant and may be considered when formulating and applying treatment strategies for some subsets of patients with DME.
<< Home