Cargando…
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 postoperativel...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6899870/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31025804 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/aos.14126 |
_version_ | 1783477227518689280 |
---|---|
author | Simons, Rob W.P. Dickman, Mor M. van den Biggelaar, Frank J.H.M. Dirksen, Carmen D. Van Rooij, Jeroen Remeijer, Lies Van der Lelij, Allegonda Wijdh, Robert H.J. Kruit, Pieter J. Nuijts, Rudy M.M.A. |
author_facet | Simons, Rob W.P. Dickman, Mor M. van den Biggelaar, Frank J.H.M. Dirksen, Carmen D. Van Rooij, Jeroen Remeijer, Lies Van der Lelij, Allegonda Wijdh, Robert H.J. Kruit, Pieter J. Nuijts, Rudy M.M.A. |
author_sort | Simons, Rob W.P. |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6899870 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-68998702019-12-19 Trial‐based cost‐effectiveness analysis of ultrathin Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (UT‐DSAEK) versus DSAEK Simons, Rob W.P. Dickman, Mor M. van den Biggelaar, Frank J.H.M. Dirksen, Carmen D. Van Rooij, Jeroen Remeijer, Lies Van der Lelij, Allegonda Wijdh, Robert H.J. Kruit, Pieter J. Nuijts, Rudy M.M.A. Acta Ophthalmol Original Articles 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. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019-04-26 2019-12 /pmc/articles/PMC6899870/ /pubmed/31025804 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/aos.14126 Text en © 2019 The Authors. Acta Ophthalmologica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica Foundation. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes. |
spellingShingle | Original Articles Simons, Rob W.P. Dickman, Mor M. van den Biggelaar, Frank J.H.M. Dirksen, Carmen D. Van Rooij, Jeroen Remeijer, Lies Van der Lelij, Allegonda Wijdh, Robert H.J. Kruit, Pieter J. Nuijts, Rudy M.M.A. Trial‐based cost‐effectiveness analysis of ultrathin Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (UT‐DSAEK) versus DSAEK |
title | Trial‐based cost‐effectiveness analysis of ultrathin Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (UT‐DSAEK) versus DSAEK |
title_full | Trial‐based cost‐effectiveness analysis of ultrathin Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (UT‐DSAEK) versus DSAEK |
title_fullStr | Trial‐based cost‐effectiveness analysis of ultrathin Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (UT‐DSAEK) versus DSAEK |
title_full_unstemmed | Trial‐based cost‐effectiveness analysis of ultrathin Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (UT‐DSAEK) versus DSAEK |
title_short | Trial‐based cost‐effectiveness analysis of ultrathin Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (UT‐DSAEK) versus DSAEK |
title_sort | trial‐based cost‐effectiveness analysis of ultrathin descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (ut‐dsaek) versus dsaek |
topic | Original Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6899870/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31025804 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/aos.14126 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT simonsrobwp trialbasedcosteffectivenessanalysisofultrathindescemetstrippingautomatedendothelialkeratoplastyutdsaekversusdsaek AT dickmanmorm trialbasedcosteffectivenessanalysisofultrathindescemetstrippingautomatedendothelialkeratoplastyutdsaekversusdsaek AT vandenbiggelaarfrankjhm trialbasedcosteffectivenessanalysisofultrathindescemetstrippingautomatedendothelialkeratoplastyutdsaekversusdsaek AT dirksencarmend trialbasedcosteffectivenessanalysisofultrathindescemetstrippingautomatedendothelialkeratoplastyutdsaekversusdsaek AT vanrooijjeroen trialbasedcosteffectivenessanalysisofultrathindescemetstrippingautomatedendothelialkeratoplastyutdsaekversusdsaek AT remeijerlies trialbasedcosteffectivenessanalysisofultrathindescemetstrippingautomatedendothelialkeratoplastyutdsaekversusdsaek AT vanderlelijallegonda trialbasedcosteffectivenessanalysisofultrathindescemetstrippingautomatedendothelialkeratoplastyutdsaekversusdsaek AT wijdhroberthj trialbasedcosteffectivenessanalysisofultrathindescemetstrippingautomatedendothelialkeratoplastyutdsaekversusdsaek AT kruitpieterj trialbasedcosteffectivenessanalysisofultrathindescemetstrippingautomatedendothelialkeratoplastyutdsaekversusdsaek AT nuijtsrudymma trialbasedcosteffectivenessanalysisofultrathindescemetstrippingautomatedendothelialkeratoplastyutdsaekversusdsaek |