Journal of cataract and refractive surgery · 2018
Trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis of toric versus monofocal intraocular lenses in cataract patients with bilateral corneal astigmatism in the Netherlands.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеПоддержка 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.
Simons Rob W P, Visser Nienke, van den Biggelaar Frank J H M, Nuijts Rudy M M A, Webers Carroll A B, Bauer Noel J C, Beckers Henny J M, Dirksen Carmen D
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of toric versus monofocal intraocular lens (IOL) implantation in cataract patients with bilateral corneal astigmatism.
SETTING: Two ophthalmology clinics in the Netherlands.
DESIGN: Prospective cost-effectiveness analysis.
METHODS: Resource-use data were collected over a 6-month postoperative period. Consecutive patients with bilateral age-related cataract and 1.25 diopters or more of corneal astigmatism were included in the economic evaluation. Patients were randomized to phacoemulsification with bilateral toric or monofocal IOL implantation. All relevant resources were included in the cost analysis. The base-case analysis was performed from a societal perspective based on quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The main outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.
RESULTS: The analysis comprised 77 consecutive patients (33 toric IOL; 44 monofocal IOL). Societal costs were higher in the toric IOL group (€3203 [$3864]) than in the monofocal IOL group (€2796 [US$3373]). QALYs were slightly lower in the toric IOL group (0.30 versus 0.31; P = .75). Toric IOLs were therefore inferior to monofocal IOLs from a cost-effectiveness perspective. The cost-effectiveness probability ranged from 1% to 15%, assuming a ceiling ratio for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €2500 to €20 000 per QALY.
CONCLUSIONS: From a societal perspective, bilateral toric IOL implantation in cataract patients with corneal astigmatism was not cost-effective compared with monofocal IOL implantation. Copayment by patients should therefore be considered.
SETTING: Two ophthalmology clinics in the Netherlands.
DESIGN: Prospective cost-effectiveness analysis.
METHODS: Resource-use data were collected over a 6-month postoperative period. Consecutive patients with bilateral age-related cataract and 1.25 diopters or more of corneal astigmatism were included in the economic evaluation. Patients were randomized to phacoemulsification with bilateral toric or monofocal IOL implantation. All relevant resources were included in the cost analysis. The base-case analysis was performed from a societal perspective based on quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The main outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.
RESULTS: The analysis comprised 77 consecutive patients (33 toric IOL; 44 monofocal IOL). Societal costs were higher in the toric IOL group (€3203 [$3864]) than in the monofocal IOL group (€2796 [US$3373]). QALYs were slightly lower in the toric IOL group (0.30 versus 0.31; P = .75). Toric IOLs were therefore inferior to monofocal IOLs from a cost-effectiveness perspective. The cost-effectiveness probability ranged from 1% to 15%, assuming a ceiling ratio for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €2500 to €20 000 per QALY.
CONCLUSIONS: From a societal perspective, bilateral toric IOL implantation in cataract patients with corneal astigmatism was not cost-effective compared with monofocal IOL implantation. Copayment by patients should therefore be considered.