Dataset Information

Cost-Effectiveness of Presbyopia Correction Among Seven Strategies of Bilateral Cataract Surgery Based on a Prospective Single-Blind Two-Center Trial in China.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The aim of this study was to explore a method to rank the cost-effectiveness of presbyopia correction in diverse strategies of bilateral cataract surgery to provide references for healthcare policymakers in rationalizing resource utilization and surgeons in customizing patient management.

Methods

The cost-effectiveness analysis based on a prospective single-blind two-center clinical trial included seven strategies in bilateral cataract surgery: monofocal, monovision, diffractive bifocal, blended, refractive bifocal, trifocal, and extended depth of focus (EDOF) strategies. The effectiveness according to the objective spectacle independence rate (hereafter "rate", a novel indicator defined as the proportion of patients with binocular uncorrected distance, intermediate and near visual acuity all better than 0.1 logMAR, logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution), costs, average cost-effectiveness ratios (ACERs, $/1% rate), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs, $/1% incremental rate) were estimated.

Results

In 194 participants (388 eyes), the trifocal strategy achieved the highest rate [93.10% (95% confidence interval (CI) 83.8-102.35%)]. The refractive bifocal strategy had the minimum ACER [$45.54/1% rate (95% CI 34.57-56.50)], followed by the blended [$59.10/1% rate (95% CI 31.72-86.48)], diffractive bifocal [$69.06/1% rate (95% CI 30.89-107.21)], EDOF [$72.85/1% rate (95% CI 52.02-93.70)], trifocal [$93.01/1% rate (95% CI 83.23-102.79)], monovision [$136.83/1% rate (95% CI - 55.40 to 329.14)], and monofocal [$264.45/1% rate (95% CI - 97.45 to 626.55)] strategies. Compared with the refractive bifocal strategy, the probabilities that the trifocal strategy (ICER $289.74/1% incremental rate) is very cost-effective and cost-effective were 81.7% and 93.2%, respectively, at the wiliness-to-pay threshold of one and three times China's annual disposable income per capita in 2021 per 10% incremental rates.

Conclusions

Cost-effectiveness analysis with ACER and ICER according to objective spectacle independence rate is a helpful tool to identify highly cost-effective presbyopia-correcting strategies in cataract surgery for clinical and policy decisions.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04265846).

SUBMITTER: Lan Q

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9587195 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost-Effectiveness of Presbyopia Correction Among Seven Strategies of Bilateral Cataract Surgery Based on a Prospective Single-Blind Two-Center Trial in China.

Lan Qianqian Q Liu Yiyun Y Xu Fan F Li Min M Li Yaxin Y Yang Tingting T Sun Tong T Yao Gang G Ma Baikai B Tao Liyuan L Xiao Xin X Feng Xing Lin XL Zeng Siming S Qi Hong H

Ophthalmology and therapy 20220907 6

<h4>Introduction</h4>The aim of this study was to explore a method to rank the cost-effectiveness of presbyopia correction in diverse strategies of bilateral cataract surgery to provide references for healthcare policymakers in rationalizing resource utilization and surgeons in customizing patient management.<h4>Methods</h4>The cost-effectiveness analysis based on a prospective single-blind two-center clinical trial included seven strategies in bilateral cataract surgery: monofocal, monovision, ...[more]

PMID: 36071311

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the postoperative binocular visual quality in six treatment protocols for bilateral age-related cataract surgery with presbyopia correction for clinical decisions.Materials and methodsIn this prospective two-center single-blinded cohort study, participants from North or South China who underwent bilateral phacoemulsification and intraocular lens implantation were divided into six protocols: monovision, diffractive bifocal, mixed, refractive bifocal, trifocal, and micro-monovision extended range of vision (EROV). Binocular visual quality was evaluated at 3 months postoperatively, including binocular uncorrected full-range visual acuity, binocular defocus curves (depth of focus [DoF] and area under the curve [AUC]), binocular visual function (fusion function and stereopsis), binocular subjective spectacle independence rates, visual analog scale (VAS) of overall satisfaction, 25-item visual function questionnaire (VFQ-25), and binocular dysphotopsia symptoms.ResultsOf the 300 enrolled patients, 272 (90.7%; 544 eyes) were analyzed. The trifocal protocol showed excellent binocular full-range visual acuity and the best performance for most DoFs and AUCs. The monovision protocol presented the worst binocular visual quality in most perspectives, especially in convergence, distance, and near stereopsis (p < 0.001). The full-range subjective spectacle independence rates were sorted from highest to lowest as follows: trifocal (84.8%), refractive bifocal (80.9%), EROV (80.0%), mixed (73.3%), diffractive bifocal (65.2%), and monovision (32.6%) protocols, with no statistically significant differences between the former five protocols (p > 0.05). The EROV protocol achieved the highest VAS and VFQ-25 scores. The incidence of postoperative binocular dysphotopsia symptoms was comparable in all protocols.ConclusionsThe trifocal protocol showed the best performance, and the monovision protocol presented the worst performance in most perspectives of binocular visual quality for presbyopia correction. The refractive bifocal, mixed, or EROV protocols can provide an approximate performance as a trifocal protocol. Ophthalmologists can customize therapies using different protocols.

Project description:BackgroundIndia has the largest number of individuals suffering from visual impairment and blindness in the world. Recent surveys indicate that demand-based factors prevent more than 80% of people from seeking appropriate eye services, suggesting the need to scale up cost-effective case finding strategies. We assessed total costs and cost-effectiveness of multiple strategies to identify and encourage people to initiate corrective eye services.MethodsUsing administrative and financial data from six Indian eye health providers, we conduct a retrospective micro-costing analysis of five case finding interventions that covered 1·4 million people served at primary eye care facilities (vision centers), 330,000 children screened at school, 310,000 people screened at eye camps and 290,000 people screened via door-to-door campaigns over one year. For four interventions, we estimate total provider costs, provider costs attributable to case finding and treatment initiation for uncorrected refractive error (URE) and cataracts, and the societal cost per DALY averted. We also estimate provider costs of deploying teleophthalmology capability within vision centers. Point estimates were calculated from provided data with confidence intervals determined by varying parameters probabilistically across 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations.FindingsCase finding and treatment initiation costs are lowest for eye camps (URE: $8·0 per case, 95% CI: 3·4-14·4; cataracts: $13·7 per case, 95% CI: 5·6-27·0) and vision centers (URE: $10·8 per case, 95% CI: 8·0-14·4; cataracts: $11·9 per case, 95% CI: 8·8-15·9). Door-to-door screening is as cost-effective for identifying and encouraging surgery for cataracts albeit with large uncertainty ($11·3 per case, 95% CI: 2·2 to 56·2), and more costly for initiating spectacles for URE ($25·8 per case, 95% CI: 24·1 to 30·7). School screening has the highest case finding and treatment initiation costs for URE ($29·3 per case, 95% CI: 15·5 to 49·6) due to the lower prevalence of eye problems in school aged children. The annualized cost of operating a vision center, excluding procurement of spectacles, is estimated at $11,707 (95% CI: 8,722-15,492). Adding teleophthalmology capability increases annualized costs by $1,271 per facility (95% CI: 181 to 3,340). Compared to baseline care, eye camps have an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $143 per DALY (95% CI: 93-251). Vision centers have an ICER of $262 per DALY (95% CI: 175-431) and were able to reach substantially more patients than any other strategy.InterpretationPolicy makers are expected to consider cost-effective case finding strategies when budgeting for eye health in India. Screening camps and vision centers are the most cost-effective strategies for identifying and encouraging individuals to undertake corrective eye services, with vision centers likely to be most cost-effective at greater scale. Investment in eye health continues to be very cost-effective in India.FundingThe study was funded by the Seva Foundation.

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:BackgroundCataract surgery is one of the most frequently performed types of surgery. Most patients suffer from bilateral cataract and while cataract surgery of only one eye is effective in restoring functional vision, second-eye surgery leads to further improvements in health-related quality of life, and is cost-effective. At present, most patients undergo cataract surgery in both eyes on separate days as recommended in national guidelines, referred to as delayed sequential bilateral cataract surgery (DSBCS). An alternative procedure involves operating both eyes on the same day, but as separate procedures, known as immediately sequential bilateral cataract surgery (ISBCS). The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness and costs of ISBCS compared to DSBCS, in order to test the hypothesis that ISBCS is non-inferior to DSBCS in terms of effectiveness and superior to ISBCS in terms of cost-effectiveness.Methods/designMulticenter non-inferiority randomised controlled clinical trial. Patients (18 years or older) with bilateral cataract and an indication for bilateral cataract surgery with an expected uncomplicated intraoperative and postoperative course are included in the study. Patients are randomly assigned to either ISBCS or DSBCS. The primary endpoint is the proportion of patients with a refractive outcome in the second eye within 1.0 dioptre from the target refraction, at 4 weeks after surgery. Secondary outcomes include corrected and uncorrected distance visual acuity, complications, patient reported outcomes (PROMs), cost-effectiveness, and budget impact. Follow-up visits are planned at 1 week after first-eye surgery and 4 weeks after second-eye surgery. At 3 months after first-eye surgery, the occurrence of complications is checked and patients fill in a final questionnaire.DiscussionThis study protocol describes the design of a multicenter non-inferiority randomised controlled trial. Current studies on ISBCS often lack information on safety regarding refractive outcomes. In addition, there is a lack of well-designed cost-effectiveness studies using established methods. The BICAT-NL study will provide more insight in refractive and cost-effectiveness outcomes for ISBCS compared to DSBCS.Trial registrationThis study was prospectively registered at Clinicaltrials.gov on January 17th 2018. (Identifier: NCT03400124 .

Dataset Information

Cost-Effectiveness of Presbyopia Correction Among Seven Strategies of Bilateral Cataract Surgery Based on a Prospective Single-Blind Two-Center Trial in China.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration

Publications

Cost-Effectiveness of Presbyopia Correction Among Seven Strategies of Bilateral Cataract Surgery Based on a Prospective Single-Blind Two-Center Trial in China.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets