Cost-effectiveness of Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty versus penetrating keratoplasty in patients with endothelial dysfunction in India

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness and perform cost-utility analysis of Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) vs. penetrating keratoplasty (PK) in Indian population. METHODS: This was an institutional, ambispective, observational study. Patients who underwent PK or DSAEK for endothelial dysfunction were included and followed up for 2 years; those with other ocular comorbidities were excluded. The analysis was performed from the patient’s perspective receiving subsidized treatment at a tertiary care hospital. Detailed history, ophthalmic examination, total expenditure by patient, and clinical outcomes were recorded. The main outcome measures were best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), graft survival (Kaplan–Meier survival estimates), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR). Utility values were based on quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) associated with visual acuity outcomes. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software package, version 12.1; a value of P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: A total of 120 patients (PK: 60, DSAEK: 60) were included. At 2 years, for a similar logMAR BSCVA, [PK (0.32 ± 0.02), DSAEK (0.25 ± 0.02); P = 0.078], the overall cost for PK (13511.1 ± 803.3 INR) was significantly more than DSAEK (11092.9 ± 492.1 INR) (difference = 1952.6 INR; P = 0.01). ICER of DSAEK relative to PK was –39,052 INR for improvement in 1 logMAR unit BSCVA. ICUR of DSAEK relative to PK was –1,95,260 INR for improvement in 1 QALY. CONCLUSION: DSAEK was more cost-effective than PK in patients with endothelial dysfunction at 2 years.