Dataset Information

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of AcrySof IQ Vivity Intraocular Lens (IOL) from Private Health Fund Perspective in Australia.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

AcrySof IQ Vivity is a unique non-diffractive extended depth of focus intraocular lens with wavefront-shaping X-WAVE technology. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of AcrySof IQ Vivity intraocular lens (DFT015) compared with standard aspheric monofocal intraocular lens (SN60WF), from a private health fund perspective in Australia.

Methods

A Markov model was developed using the following health states: well, need for spectacles (near/distance/bifocal/varifocal), very bothersome visual disturbances (glare/haloes/starbursts) - with/without spectacles, and death. Model inputs were sourced from a randomized clinical study (NCT03010254), published literature, prostheses list and clinical opinion. A lifetime horizon (up to 30 years) was considered, and cost and health outcomes were discounted at 5% per annum. Model outcomes included incremental cost-effectiveness ratio defined as incremental cost per quality adjusted life year gain. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were also conducted.

Results

Bilateral implantation of DFT015 intraocular lens provided quality adjusted life year gain of 0.16 at an incremental cost of AU$307 compared to bilateral SN60WF, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of AU$1908/quality adjusted life year, well below the cost-effectiveness threshold (Range: AU$45,000-AU$75,000) typically used by Medical Services Advisory Committee in Australia. Results were most sensitive to intraocular lens costs, post-operative spectacle dependence, and disutility due to wearing glasses. Robustness of the results was further confirmed by probabilistic sensitivity analysis and scenario analyses.

Conclusion

AcrySof IQ Vivity intraocular lens is a highly cost-effective treatment strategy with improved vision-related quality of life outcomes for presbyopic cataract surgery patients.

SUBMITTER: Bala C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9356702 | biostudies-literature | 2022

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of AcrySof IQ Vivity Intraocular Lens (IOL) from Private Health Fund Perspective in Australia.

Bala Chandra C Athanasiov Paul P Holland Jason J Dhariwal Mukesh M Gupta Amit A Rathi Hemant H

Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) 20220802

<h4>Purpose</h4>AcrySof IQ Vivity is a unique non-diffractive extended depth of focus intraocular lens with wavefront-shaping X-WAVE technology. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of AcrySof IQ Vivity intraocular lens (DFT015) compared with standard aspheric monofocal intraocular lens (SN60WF), from a private health fund perspective in Australia.<h4>Methods</h4>A Markov model was developed using the following health states: well, need for spectacles (near/distance/bifocal/varifocal), ve ...[more]

PMID: 35942082

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTo determine the cost effectiveness of an adjunctive screening OCT during the preoperative evaluation of a patient considering cataract surgery with a multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) implantation.DesignCost-effectiveness analysis.ParticipantsA 67-year-old man with 20/60 vision undergoing evaluation for first-eye cataract surgery.MethodsThe cost-effectiveness analysis of the reference patient undergoing a preoperative cataract examination with and without a screening OCT was performed, evaluating for vitreoretinal diseases including an epiretinal membrane, age-related macular degeneration, vitreomacular traction, and cystoid macular edema. It was assumed that patients with macular pathologies detected before surgery would receive a monofocal IOL and be referred to a retina specialist for evaluation and management. The Medicare reimbursable cost of an OCT was $41.81. All costs and benefits were adjusted for inflation to 2019 United States dollars and discounted 3% per annum over a 16-year time horizon. Probability sensitivity analyses and 1-way deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess for uncertainty.Main outcome measuresIncremental cost-effectiveness ratio and incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).ResultsApproximately 20.5% of patients undergoing cataract surgery may have macular pathologies, of which 11% may not be detected on the initial clinical examination. In the base case, an adjunctive preoperative OCT was cost effective from a third-party payer and societal perspective in the United States. In the probability sensitivity analyses, the ICURs were within the societal willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000/QALY in approximately 64.4% of the clinical scenarios.ConclusionsA preoperative screening OCT during the evaluation of a patient considering a multifocal IOL added to the costs of the cataract surgery, but the OCT increased the detection of macular pathologies and improved the QALYs over time. An adjunctive screening OCT can be cost effective from a third-party payer and societal perspective.

Project description:BackgroundOncotype DX (ODX) is a validated assay for the prediction of risk of recurrence and benefit of chemotherapy (CT) in both node negative (N0) and 1-3 positive nodes (N1), hormone receptor positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) early breast cancer (eBC). Due to limited access to genomic assays in Brazil, treatment decisions remain largely driven by traditional clinicopathologic risk factors. ODX has been reported to be cost-effective in different health system, but limited data are available considering the reality of middle-income countries such as Brazil. We aim to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ODX across strata of clinical risk groups using data from a dataset of patients from Brazilian institutions.MethodsClinicopathologic and ODX information were analyzed for patients with T1-T3, N0-N1, HR+/HER2- eBC who had an ODX performed between 2005 and 2020. Projections of CT indication by clinicopathologic criteria were based on binary clinical risk categorization based on the Adjuvant! Algorithm. The ODX score was correlated with the indication of CT according to TAILORx and RxPONDER data. Two decision-tree models were developed. In the first model, low and high clinical risk patients were included while in the second, only high clinical risk patients were included. The cost for ODX and CT was based on the Brazilian private medicine perspective.ResultsIn all, 645 patients were analyzed; 411 patients (63.7%) had low clinical risk and 234 patients (36.3%) had high clinical risk disease. The ODX indicated low (<11), intermediate (11-25), and high (>25) risk in 119 (18.4%), 415 (64.3%), and 111 (17.2%) patients, respectively. Among 645 patients analyzed in the first model, ODX was effective (5.6% reduction in CT indication) though with an incremental cost of United States Dollar (US$) 2288.87 per patient. Among 234 patients analyzed in the second model (high clinical risk only), ODX led to a 57.7% reduction in CT indication and reduced costs by US$ 4350.66 per patient.ConclusionsOur study suggests that ODX is cost-saving for patients with high clinical risk HR+/HER2- eBC and cost-attractive for the overall population in the Brazilian private medicine perspective. Its incorporation into routine practice should be strongly considered by healthcare providers.

Project description:IntroductionFor people living with diabetes, effective glucose monitoring is a key component in diabetes care, helping to reduce disease burden, complications, and healthcare utilization. Sensor-based glucose monitoring systems, which can provide more comprehensive information about glucose levels than capillary-based self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG), are becoming established among people living with diabetes. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of glucose monitoring with FreeStyle Libre systems, compared with SMBG, from the perspective of a Canadian private payer.MethodsThe analysis used the validated, person-level microsimulation model DEDUCE (Determination of Diabetes Utilities, Costs, and Effects). Analyses were conducted separately for populations of people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T1DM; T2DM), with time horizons of 40 and 25 years, respectively. T2DM treatment was assumed to be 84% non-insulin, 10% basal insulin, and 6% multiple daily injections of insulin. The effect of FreeStyle Libre was modeled as reductions versus SMBG in glycated hemoglobin level (T1DM, - 0.42%; insulin-treated T2DM, - 0.59%; non-insulin-treated T2DM, - 0.3%) and in acute diabetic events (hypoglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis). Costs (in 2023 Canadian dollars (Can$)) and utilities were discounted at 1.5%. Outcomes were assessed as costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).ResultsIn both populations, FreeStyle Libre was dominant to SMBG, providing more QALYs at a lower cost (T1DM: + 1.25 QALYs, - Can$32,287 costs; T2DM: + 0.48 QALYs, - Can$8091 costs). Reductions were seen in the cumulative incidence of all complications (except blindness in the T1DM analysis). FreeStyle Libre was dominant to SMBG in all scenarios tested. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that FreeStyle Libre had a 100% probability of being dominant to SMBG for T1DM and a 91% probability of being dominant for T2DM.ConclusionThis economic analysis shows that, from a Canadian private payer perspective, FreeStyle Libre is cost-effective compared with SMBG for all people living with diabetes.

Project description:PurposeProton beam therapy is a commonly accepted treatment for intraocular melanomas, but the literature is lacking in descriptions of patient preferences of clinical outcomes and economic impact. In addition, no economic evaluations have been published regarding the incremental cost-effectiveness of proton beam therapy compared with enucleation or plaque brachytherapy, typical alternative treatments. We, therefore, conducted a cost-utility analysis of these three approaches for the treatment of intraocular melanomas.Materials and methodsA Markov model was constructed. Model parameters were identified from the published literature and publicly available data sources. Cost-effectiveness of each treatment was calculated in 2011 US Dollars per quality-adjusted life-year. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated assuming enucleation as reference. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted on all model parameters. A decision threshold of $50,000/quality-adjusted life-year was used to determine cost-effectiveness.ResultsEnucleation had the lowest costs and quality-adjusted life-years, and plaque brachytherapy had the highest costs and quality-adjusted life-years. Compared with enucleation, the base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for plaque brachytherapy and proton beam therapy were $77,500/quality-adjusted life-year and $106,100/quality-adjusted life-year, respectively. Results were highly sensitive to multiple parameters. All three treatments were considered optimal, and even dominant, depending on the values used for sensitive parameters.ConclusionBase-case analysis results suggest enucleation to be optimal. However, the optimal choice was not robust to sensitivity analyses and, depending on the assumption, both plaque brachytherapy and proton beam therapy could be considered cost-effective. Future clinical studies should focus on generating further evidence with the greatest parameter uncertainty to inform future cost-effectiveness analyses.

Dataset Information

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of AcrySof IQ Vivity Intraocular Lens (IOL) from Private Health Fund Perspective in Australia.

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of AcrySof IQ Vivity Intraocular Lens (IOL) from Private Health Fund Perspective in Australia.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets