ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of the treatment of low corneal astigmatism (≤1.5 D) at the moment of the cataract surgery. SETTING: ("Masked by journal requirement"). DESIGN: Economic Evaluation. METHODS: A decision tree was used to assess the cost-effectiveness of implanting spherical versus toric intraocular lenses (IOLs) or the spherical lens combined with the following corneal incisions: limbal relaxing incisions conducted manually (M-LRI) or assisted by femtosecond laser (F-LRI), arcuate keratotomies conducted manually (M-AK) or assisted by femtosecond (F-AK), and intrastromal arcuate keratotomies (F-iAK). Outcomes of cost were selected from a patient's perspective considering the gross cost of each one of the surgeries at European centers, and the effectiveness variable was the probability of achieving a visual acuity of 20/20 after surgery. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to assess the uncertainty considering the evidence retrieved from the transition probabilities of the model, the effectiveness, and the cost. RESULTS: F-AK or Toric IOLs were the most effective treatments, increasing an 16% or 9%, respectively, in the percentage of eyes attaining 20/20 vision. The M-LRI, F-iAK, and F-LRI procedures were strongly dominated, while the M-AK and toric IOL were weakly dominated by the F-AK. A patient with low corneal astigmatism would need to be willing to pay 360 [CI 95%: 231-1224] with F-AK and 472 [CI 95%: 149-4490] with toric IOLs for a 10% increase in the probability of achieving 20/20 vision. CONCLUSIONS: From the patient's perspective, F-AK was generally the most cost-effective treatment, even though toric IOLs can dominate in some countries.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this article was to ascertain the existing literature and find the gaps in economic evaluations of cataracts. METHODS: Systematic methods were used to search and collect the published literature on economic evaluations of cataracts. A mapping review of studies published in the following bibliographical databases was performed: the National Library of Medicine (PubMed), EMBASE, Web of Science (WOS), and the Central of Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) database. A descriptive analysis was conducted and relevant studies were classified into different groups. RESULTS: Among 984 studies screened, 56 studies were included in the mapping review. Four research questions were answered. There has been a progressive increase of publications during the last decade. The majority of the included studies were published by authors from institutions in the USA and UK. The most commonly investigated area was cataract surgery followed by intraocular lenses (IOLs). The studies were classified into different categories according to the main outcome evaluated, such as comparisons between different surgical techniques, costs of the cataract surgery, second eye cataract surgery costs, quality of life gain after cataract surgery, waiting time of cataract surgery and costs, and cataract evaluation, follow-up, and costs. In the IOL classification, the most frequently studied area was the comparison between monofocal and multifocal IOLs, followed by the comparison between toric and monofocal IOLs. CONCLUSIONS: Cataract surgery is a cost-effective procedure compared with other non-ophthalmic and ophthalmic interventions and surgery waiting time is an important factor to consider because vision loss has a huge and broad-ranging impact on society. Numerous gaps and inconsistencies are found among the studies included. For this reason, there is a need for further studies according to the classification described in the mapping review.
