A Cost-Utility Analysis of Trabecular Bypass Devices Versus Usual Care for Patients With Open-Angle Glaucoma

Systematic methodological review of health state values in glaucoma cost-utility analyses

IMPORTANCE

Describing the characteristics and sources of health state utility values and reporting practice in the literature of cost-utility analyses facilitates an understanding of the level of the transparency, validity, and generalizability of cost-utility analyses. Improving the quality of reporting will support investigators in describing the incremental value of emerging glaucoma interventions.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the state of practice among published glaucoma cost-utility analysis studies, focusing on valuation of health and the quality of reporting.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

We searched several databases including Medline, CINHAL, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, Biosis previews, the Health Economic Evaluations Database, and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED). We included full-text, English, published cost-utility analyses of glaucoma interventions with quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) as the primary outcome measure to calculate incremental cost-utility ratios. Excluded studies were non-English language, reviews, editorials, protocols, or other types of economic studies (cost-benefit, cost-minimization, cost-effectiveness). Study characteristics, operational definitions of glaucoma health states and health state utilities were extracted. The original source of the health utility was reviewed to determine the scale of measurement and the source of preference weighting. Items from the Systematic Review of Utilities for Cost-Effectiveness (SpRUCE checklist) were used to assess the reporting and quality of health utilities in glaucoma CUA.

FINDINGS

43 CUAs were included, with 11 unique sources of health utilities. A wide range of health utilities for the same Hodapp-Parrish-Anderson glaucoma health states were reported; ocular hypertension (0.84-0.95), mild (0.68-0.94), moderate (0.57-0.92), advanced (0.58-0.88), severe/blind (0.46-0.76), and bilateral blindness (0.26-0.5). Most studies reported the basis for using health utilities (34, 79%) and any assumptions or adjustments applied to the health utilities (22, 51%). Few studies reported a framework for assessing the relevance of health utilities to a decision context (8, 19%). Even fewer (3, 7%) applied a systematic search strategy to identify health utilities and used a structured assessment of quality for inclusion. Overall, reporting has not improved over time.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This review describes that few CUAs describe important rationale for using health state utility values. Including additional details on the search, appraisal, selection, and inclusion process of health utility values improves transparency, generalizability and supports the assessment of the validity of study conclusions. Future investigations should aim to use health utilities on the same scale of measurement across health states and consider the source and relevance to the decision context/purpose of conducting that cost-utility study.

Efficacy and Safety of Pairing iStent Inject Trabecular Micro-Bypass and iAccess Precision Blade Goniotomy in Patients with Open-Angle Glaucoma

INTRODUCTION

This study evaluated efficacy and safety of implanting two second-generation trabecular micro-bypass stents (iStent inject/iStent inject W) with phacoemulsification, either with or without iAccess Precision Blade goniotomy, in patients with mild-to-moderate open-angle glaucoma (OAG).

METHODS

This retrospective, non-randomized, unmasked, dual-arm, single-site, multi-surgeon, consecutive case series evaluated all OAG eyes that underwent phacoemulsification and iStent inject implantation either as a dual procedure (group A) or paired with iAccess goniotomy (group B) from July 2020 to May 2022. Effectiveness outcomes analyzed from 1 month onward included intraocular pressure (IOP), proportions of eyes with IOP ≤ 12/≤ 15/≤ 18, proportion medication-free, and medication number. Safety outcomes at all timepoints included adverse events and secondary surgeries.

RESULTS

In group A, mean IOP reduced from 14.9 ± 3.2 mmHg on 1.22 ± 1.31 mean medications preoperatively (n = 63) to 13.5 ± 2.5 mmHg on 0.24 ± 0.61 medications at month 3 (n = 34; p = 0.048 IOP, p < 0.001 medications). In group B, mean IOP reduced from 16.0 ± 4.2 mmHg on 1.12 ± 1.07 medications preoperatively (n = 93) to 12.2 ± 2.3 mmHg on 0.57 ± 1.27 medications at month 3 (n = 23; p < 0.001 IOP, p = 0.003 medications). From preoperative to 3 months, the percent of eyes with IOP ≤ 12 mmHg remained at 32.4% in group A (p = 1.0) and rose from 21.7% to 60.9% in group B (p = 0.0177); eyes with IOP ≤ 15 mmHg rose from 52.9% to 76.5% in group A (p = 0.0963) and from 43.5% to 91.3% in group B (p = 0.0034). Adjusting for baseline between-group differences, group B had significantly greater postoperative IOP reduction than group A (p = 0.043); medication reductions were similar. Safety was favorable in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Phacoemulsification and iStent inject with or without iAccess Precision Blade goniotomy produced clinically meaningful and safe IOP and medication reductions. The paired iStent inject + iAccess + phacoemulsification procedure enabled greater IOP reduction and lower IOP thresholds than iStent inject + phacoemulsification. The study provides some of the first data on this paired approach and on the novel iAccess Precision Blade.