Eye (London, England) · 2009
Lifetime costs and effectiveness of ReSTOR compared with a monofocal IOL and Array-SA40 in the Netherlands.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
De Vries N E, Laurendeau C, Lafuma A, Berdeaux G, Nuijts R M M A
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To estimate the lifetime cost consequences for society and the National Health Service (NHS) of bilateral monofocal (SI40NB) or multifocal (ReSTOR or Array-SA40) intraocular lense (IOL) implantation after cataract surgery.
SETTING: Public hospital in the Netherlands.
METHODS: A Markov model simulated three cohorts of patients followed 69 until 100 years of age, or death. Spectacle independence rates for each IOL were adjusted to the results of a randomized clinical trial that compared monofocal and multifocal Array-SA40 IOL implants, together with a prospective cohort of patients implanted with ReSTOR. Adjustment was performed using the propensity score method in a multivariate analysis. Resource consumption was estimated from a dedicated Dutch survey. Dutch unit costs were applied to spectacles, cataract surgery, IOLs, visits to ophthalmologists, optometrists, transport, and spectacle cleaning materials. Cost discounted at 4% and undiscounted economic results were calculated.
RESULTS: Spectacle independence rates were 86.0% for ReSTOR, 8.7% for monofocal IOLs, and 8.5% for Array-SA40. Patients lived without needing spectacles for 12.9 years after ReSTOR, for 1.4 years after monofocal IOLs, and 1.3 years after Array-SA40. ReSTOR patients bought 6.4 fewer pairs of spectacles than monofocal patients. Lifetime discounted cost consequences for the society were ReSTOR euro3969, monofocal IOLs euro4123, and Array-SA40 euro5326. Corresponding costs for the NHS were euro2415, euro2555, and euro2556, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: ReSTOR IOLs provided higher levels of spectacle independence than monofocal SI40NB or multifocal Array-SA40 IOLs resulting in savings, compared to a monofocal, over the period modelled of euro315 for society and euro140 for the NHS.
SETTING: Public hospital in the Netherlands.
METHODS: A Markov model simulated three cohorts of patients followed 69 until 100 years of age, or death. Spectacle independence rates for each IOL were adjusted to the results of a randomized clinical trial that compared monofocal and multifocal Array-SA40 IOL implants, together with a prospective cohort of patients implanted with ReSTOR. Adjustment was performed using the propensity score method in a multivariate analysis. Resource consumption was estimated from a dedicated Dutch survey. Dutch unit costs were applied to spectacles, cataract surgery, IOLs, visits to ophthalmologists, optometrists, transport, and spectacle cleaning materials. Cost discounted at 4% and undiscounted economic results were calculated.
RESULTS: Spectacle independence rates were 86.0% for ReSTOR, 8.7% for monofocal IOLs, and 8.5% for Array-SA40. Patients lived without needing spectacles for 12.9 years after ReSTOR, for 1.4 years after monofocal IOLs, and 1.3 years after Array-SA40. ReSTOR patients bought 6.4 fewer pairs of spectacles than monofocal patients. Lifetime discounted cost consequences for the society were ReSTOR euro3969, monofocal IOLs euro4123, and Array-SA40 euro5326. Corresponding costs for the NHS were euro2415, euro2555, and euro2556, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: ReSTOR IOLs provided higher levels of spectacle independence than monofocal SI40NB or multifocal Array-SA40 IOLs resulting in savings, compared to a monofocal, over the period modelled of euro315 for society and euro140 for the NHS.