Cost-effectiveness of the ADVISE trial: An intraoperative OCT protocol in DMEK surgery

The intraoperative optical coherence tomography (iOCT) is recently introduced in Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) surgery, which aims to increase clinical performance and surgery safety. However, the acquisition of this modality is a substantial investment. The objective of this paper is to report on the cost-effectiveness of an iOCT-protocol in DMEK surgery with the Advanced Visualization in Corneal Surgery Evaluation (ADVISE) trial. This cost-effectiveness analysis uses data 6 months postoperatively from the multicentre prospective randomized clinical ADVISE trial. Sixty-five patients were randomized to usual care (n = 33) or the iOCT-protocol (n = 32). Quality-Adjusted Life Years (EQ-5D-5L), Vision-related Quality of Life (NEI-VFQ-25) and self-administered resources questionnaires were administered. Main outcome is the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and sensitivity analyses. The iOCT protocol reports no statistical difference in ICER. For the usual care group compared with the iOCT protocol, respectively, the mean societal costs are €5027 compared with €4920 (Δ€107). The sensitivity analyses report the highest variability on time variables. This economic evaluation learned that there is no added value in quality of life or cost-effectiveness in using the iOCT protocol in DMEK surgery. The variability of cost variables depends on the characteristics of an eye clinic. The added value of iOCT could gain incrementally by increasing surgical efficiency, and aiding in surgical decision-making.

Trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis of Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) versus ultrathin Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (UT-DSAEK)

PURPOSE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasy (DMEK) versus Ultrathin Descemet Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty (UT-DSAEK).

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness analysis using data from a multicenter randomized clinical trial was performed. The time horizon was 12 months postoperatively. Patients with Fuchs' endothelial dystrophy were randomized to DMEK (n = 29) or UT-DSAEK (n = 24). Relevant resources from healthcare and societal perspectives were included in the cost analysis. Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) were determined using the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) and the EuroQol EQ-5D-5L questionnaires. The main outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER; incremental societal costs per QALY).

RESULTS

Societal costs averaged €8851 (US$11 406) for DMEK and €8320 (US$10 722) for UT-DSAEK. Higher costs in the DMEK group were mainly caused by higher rebubbling and regraft rates (21% and 7%, vs. 4% and 0% in the UT-DSAEK group). HUI3 QALYs were 0.70 (DMEK) and 0.79 (UT-DSAEK). EQ-5D-5L QALYs were 0.83 (DMEK) and 0.86 (UT-DSAEK). The ICER indicated DMEK was dominated by UT-DSAEK in both analyses. The cost-effectiveness probability for DMEK ranged from 21% to 5% (HUI3 QALYs) and 27%-14% (EQ-5D-5L QALYs), assuming the maximum acceptable ICER ranged from €2500 to €80.000 (US$3222-US$103 093) per QALY.

CONCLUSION

The base case cost-effectiveness analysis favoured UT-DSAEK over DMEK, as costs of DMEK were higher while QALYs were lower. Further studies are required to assess long-term rebubbling and regraft rates and graft survival.

Trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis of ultrathin Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (UT-DSAEK) versus DSAEK

PURPOSE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ultrathin Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (UT-DSAEK) versus standard DSAEK.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness analysis using data from a multicentre randomized clinical trial was performed. The time horizon was 12 months postoperatively. Sixty-four eyes of 64 patients with Fuchs' endothelial dystrophy were included and randomized to UT-DSAEK (n = 33) or DSAEK (n = 31). Relevant resources from healthcare and societal perspectives were included in the cost analysis. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were determined using the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 questionnaire. The main outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER; incremental societal costs per QALY).

RESULTS

Societal costs were €9431 (US$11 586) for UT-DSAEK and €9110 (US$11 192) for DSAEK. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were 0.74 in both groups. The ICER indicated inferiority of UT-DSAEK. The cost-effectiveness probability ranged from 37% to 42%, assuming the maximum acceptable ICER ranged from €2500-€80 000 (US$3071-US$98 280) per QALY. Additional analyses were performed omitting one UT-DSAEK patient who required a regraft [ICER €9057 (US$11 127) per QALY, cost-effectiveness probability: 44-62%] and correcting QALYs for an imbalance in baseline utilities [ICER €23 827 (US$29 271) per QALY, cost-effectiveness probability: 36-59%]. Furthermore, the ICER was €2101 (US$2581) per patient with clinical improvement in best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (≥0.2 logMAR) and €3274 (US$4022) per patient with clinical improvement in National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire-25 composite score (≥10 points).

CONCLUSION

The base case analysis favoured DSAEK, since costs of UT-DSAEK were higher while QALYs were comparable. However, additional analyses revealed no preference for UT-DSAEK or DSAEK. Further cost-effectiveness studies are required to reduce uncertainty.

Comparative cost-effectiveness analysis of descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty versus penetrating keratoplasty in the United States

PURPOSE

To perform a comparative cost-effectiveness analysis of Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) and penetrating keratoplasty (PK) for corneal endothelial disease.

DESIGN

Retrospective cost-effectiveness analysis.

METHODS

This cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from a third-party payer perspective with a 5-year time horizon. Probabilities of outcomes and complications of each of the procedures were calculated based on review of the published literature. A model was constructed to compare the costs and utilities associated with DSAEK and PK. Costs of donor tissue preparation, surgery, follow-up, postoperative complications, and procedures were considered. Utility values were based on quality-adjusted life years associated with visual acuity outcomes. Both costs and utilities were discounted at 3% per year. Sensitivity analyses were performed on key model inputs.

RESULTS

Base case analysis found DSAEK to be less costly compared with PK ($9362 vs $10 239), with greater utility (3.15 vs 2.47 quality-adjusted life years). Sensitivity analyses revealed that even at graft failure rates for DSAEK approaching the rates for PK, DSAEK would still reduce costs. Varying the dislocation rate in our model showed that even at dislocation rates approaching 50%, DSAEK remained less costly. Further, with DSAEK rejection rates as high as 28%, DSAEK would remain a dominant procedure over PK.

CONCLUSIONS

Comparative cost-effectiveness analysis of DSAEK versus PK indicates favorable cost and utility outcomes associated with DSAEK for treatment of corneal endothelial disease. Longer follow-up of DSAEK outcomes will provide more accurate information regarding long-term cost-effectiveness of the procedure.

Economic evaluation of endothelial keratoplasty techniques and penetrating keratoplasty in the Netherlands

PURPOSE

To evaluate cost-effectiveness of penetrating keratoplasty (PK), femtosecond laser-assisted Descemet stripping endothelial keratoplasty (FS-DSEK), and Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK).

DESIGN

Cost-effectiveness analysis based on data from a randomized multicenter clinical trial and a noncomparative prospective study.

METHODS

Data of 118 patients with corneal endothelial dysfunction were analyzed in the economic evaluation. Forty patients were included in the PK group, 36 in the FS-DSEK group, and 42 in the DSAEK group. The primary incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was the incremental costs per clinically improved patient, defined as a patient with a combined effectiveness of both a clinically improved BSCVA (defined as an improvement of at least 2 lines) and a clinically acceptable refractive astigmatism (defined as less than or equal to 3.0 diopters). Analysis was based on a 1-year follow-up period after transplantation.

RESULTS

The percentage of treated patients who met the combined effectiveness measures was 52% for DSAEK, 44% for PK, and 43% for FS-DSEK. Mean total costs per patient were €6674 (US$7942), €12 443 (US$14 807), and €7072 (US$8416) in the PK group, FS-DSEK group, and DSAEK group, respectively. FS-DSEK was less effective and more costly compared to both DSAEK and PK. DSAEK was more costly but also more effective compared to PK, resulting in incremental costs of €4975 (US$5920) per additional clinically improved patient.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study show that FS-DSEK was not cost-effective compared to PK and DSAEK. DSAEK, on the other hand, was more costly but also more effective compared to PK. Including societal costs, a longer follow-up period and preparation of the lamellar transplant buttons in a national cornea bank could improve the cost-effectiveness of DSAEK.

Corneal transplantation

Corneal transplantation or keratoplasty has developed rapidly in the past 10 years. Penetrating keratoplasty, a procedure consisting of full-thickness replacement of the cornea, has been the dominant procedure for more than half a century, and successfully caters to most causes of corneal blindness. The adoption by specialist surgeons of newer forms of lamellar transplantation surgery, which selectively replace only diseased layers of the cornea, has been a fundamental change in recent years. Deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty is replacing penetrating keratoplasty for disorders affecting the corneal stromal layers, while eliminating the risk of endothelial rejection. Endothelial keratoplasty, which selectively replaces the corneal endothelium in patients with endothelial disease, has resulted in more rapid and predictable visual outcomes. Other emerging therapies are ocular surface reconstruction and artificial cornea (keratoprosthesis) surgery, which have become more widely available because of rapid advances in these techniques. Collectively, these advances have resulted in improved outcomes, and have expanded the number of cases of corneal blindness, which can now be treated successfully. Femtosecond-laser-assisted surgery, bioengineered corneas, and medical treatment for endothelial disease are also likely to play a part in the future.