Cost-Utility Analyses of Cataract Surgery in Advanced Age-Related Macular Degeneration

Cost-Utility of Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachment Repair With Pars Plana Vitrectomy, Scleral Buckle, and Pneumatic Retinopexy: A Microsimulation Model

PURPOSE

To assess the cost-effectiveness of primary noncomplex rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) repair, comparing 3 different strategies, pars plana vitrectomy (PPV), scleral buckle (SB), and pneumatic retinopexy (PnR) from the health care payer perspective over a lifetime.

DESIGN

Model-based cost-utility analysis.

METHODS

A simulated cohort of 100,000 adult patients (≥18 years old) requiring primary noncomplex RRD repair in theoretical surgical centers in the United States. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), lifetime costs (2022 United States dollars), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the 3 interventions were projected over a lifetime horizon, with a cost-effectiveness threshold of ≤$50,000 per gained QALY.

RESULTS

Based on inputted parameters, the primary anatomical success was highest for PPV (95.00%) compared to SB (91.76%) and PnR (63.41%). The QALYs associated with PPV, SB, and PnR were (11.87, SD 1.62), (11.84, SD 1.63), and (11.59, SD 1.72), respectively. The incurred lifetime costs of RRD repair and associated postoperative surgeries for PPV, SB, and PnR were $4445.72 (SD 655.75), $4518.04 (662.92), and $3978.45 (728.50), respectively. Parameter-level simulations suggested that PPV was most likely to be the most cost-effective therapy compared to SB and PnR beyond a threshold of $3000/QALY. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for PPV compared to PnR was $1693.54. SB was dominant in all scenarios. Threshold analyses indicated that the success rate of PnR would have to be 100% and/or the cost would have to be $2000 or less over lifetime for it to be more cost-effective than PPV.

CONCLUSIONS

This study found PPV to be the most cost-effective primary procedure for RRD repair at a threshold of $50,000/QALY gained over a lifetime horizon from the health care payer perspective.

Quantifying the real-world cost saving from using surgical adjuncts to prevent complications during cataract surgery

INTRODUCTION

Surgical adjuncts in cataract surgery are often perceived as sometimes necessary, always expensive, particularly in the "lean" cost-saving era. However, prevention of a surgical complication, rather than subsequent management, should always be the preferred strategy. We wished to model real-world costs associated with surgical adjuncts use and test the maxim for cataract surgery-"if you think of it, use it".

METHODS

We compared UK list prices for equipment and related costs of preventing vitreous loss (VL) via use of surgical adjuncts vs its subsequent management in a hypothetical cataract surgery scenario of a white swollen cataract with a moderately dilated pupil.

RESULTS

The original surgery costs for the "cautious with adjuncts, no complications" approach was £943.54, including adjuncts costing £137.47. In the "minimalist, no adjunct" scenario, management of VL using the Anterior Vitrectomy Kit cost £142.45, and additional management and follow-up costs resulted in total cost of £1178.20 (£234.66 (25%) more expensive). If left aphakic, an additional operation for secondary iris clip IOL insertion and further follow-up to address the impact of the complication ultimately cost £2124.67 overall. An additional initial spend on surgical adjuncts of £137.47 could potentially prevent £1293.60 (9× increase) in direct costs in this scenario.

CONCLUSIONS

Through simple scenario modelling, we have demonstrated the cost benefits provided by the use of precautionary surgical adjuncts during cataract surgery. VL costs significantly more in terms of complication management and follow-up. This supports the cataract surgeon's maxim-"if you think of it, use it".

Health State Utility Values for Age-Related Macular Degeneration: Review and Advice

Health state utility values are a major source of uncertainty in economic evaluations of interventions for age-related macular degeneration (AMD). This review identifies and critiques published utility values and methods for eliciting de novo utility values in AMD. We describe how utility values have been used in healthcare decision making and provide guidance on the choice of utility values for future economic evaluations for AMD. Literature was searched using PubMed, and health technology assessments (HTA) were searched using HTA agency websites to identify articles reporting utility values or approaches to derive utility values in AMD and articles applying utilities for use in healthcare decision making relating to treatments for AMD. A total of 70 studies qualified for data extraction, 22 of which were classified as containing utility values and/or elicitation methods, and 48 were classified as using utility values in decision making. A large number of studies have elicited utility values for AMD, although those applied to decision making have focused on a few of these. There is an appreciation of the challenges in the measurement and valuation of health states, with recent studies addressing challenges such as the insensitivity of generic health-related quality of life (HRQoL) questionnaires and utility in the worse-seeing eye. We would encourage careful consideration when choosing utility values in decision making and an explicit critique of their applicability to the decision problem.

Cataract surgery and age-related macular degeneration

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The following review describes the recent evidence regarding the effect of cataract surgery on age-related macular degeneration (AMD).

RECENT FINDINGS

For patients with both visually significant cataracts and AMD, recent evidence supports the role of cataract surgery with reports demonstrating improved visual acuity, absence of significant disease progression, and improved quality of life.

SUMMARY

Recent evidence does not find cataract surgery to cause or worsen AMD.

Estimating Health-State Utility for Economic Models in Clinical Studies: An ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force Report

Cost-utility models are increasingly used in many countries to establish whether the cost of a new intervention can be justified in terms of health benefits. Health-state utility (HSU) estimates (the preference for a given state of health on a cardinal scale where 0 represents dead and 1 represents full health) are typically among the most important and uncertain data inputs in cost-utility models. Clinical trials represent an important opportunity for the collection of health-utility data. However, trials designed primarily to evaluate efficacy and safety often present challenges to the optimal collection of HSU estimates for economic models. Careful planning is needed to determine which of the HSU estimates may be measured in planned trials; to establish the optimal methodology; and to plan any additional studies needed. This report aimed to provide a framework for researchers to plan the collection of health-utility data in clinical studies to provide high-quality HSU estimates for economic modeling. Recommendations are made for early planning of health-utility data collection within a research and development program; design of health-utility data collection during protocol development for a planned clinical trial; design of prospective and cross-sectional observational studies and alternative study types; and statistical analyses and reporting.