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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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.
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