Trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis of toric versus monofocal intraocular lenses in cataract patients with bilateral corneal astigmatism in the Netherlands.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of toric versus monofocal intraocular lens (IOL) implantation in cataract patients with bilateral corneal astigmatism. SETTING: Two ophthalmology clinics in the Netherlands. DESIGN: Prospective cost-effectiveness analysis. METHODS: Resource-use data were collected over a 6-month postoperative period. Consecutive patients with bilateral age-related cataract and 1.25 diopters or more of corneal astigmatism were included in the economic evaluation. Patients were randomized to phacoemulsification with bilateral toric or monofocal IOL implantation. All relevant resources were included in the cost analysis. The base-case analysis was performed from a societal perspective based on quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The main outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. RESULTS: The analysis comprised 77 consecutive patients (33 toric IOL; 44 monofocal IOL). Societal costs were higher in the toric IOL group (€3203 [$3864]) than in the monofocal IOL group (€2796 [US$3373]). QALYs were slightly lower in the toric IOL group (0.30 versus 0.31; P = .75). Toric IOLs were therefore inferior to monofocal IOLs from a cost-effectiveness perspective. The cost-effectiveness probability ranged from 1% to 15%, assuming a ceiling ratio for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €2500 to €20 000 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: From a societal perspective, bilateral toric IOL implantation in cataract patients with corneal astigmatism was not cost-effective compared with monofocal IOL implantation. Copayment by patients should therefore be considered.

Economic evaluation of toric intraocular lens: a short- and long-term decision analytic model.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the economic value of improved uncorrected visual acuity among patients with cataract and preexisting astigmatism treated with toric intraocular lenses (IOLs) compared with conventional monofocal IOLs. METHODS: We developed a decision analytic model of hypothetical patients with preexisting astigmatism. We examined costs and outcomes among patients 65 years and older with cataract and preexisting astigmatism (1.5-3.0 diopters) who were receiving either toric or conventional IOLs with and without intraoperative refractive correction (IRC). Data were obtained from the literature and from a survey of 60 US ophthalmologists. Total medical costs of bilateral treatment were calculated for the first posttreatment year and remaining lifetime. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility outcomes were computed. Future costs and utilities were discounted by 3%. RESULTS: A larger proportion of patients receiving toric IOLs achieved distance vision spectacle independence (67%) and uncorrected visual acuity of 20/25 or better OU (53%) compared with conventional IOLs with (63% and 48%, respectively) or without IRC (53% and 44%, respectively), resulting in fewer future vision corrections. Toric IOLs provided an additional 10.20 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared with conventional IOLs with (10.14 QALYs) and without IRC (10.10 QALYs). Higher first-year costs of the toric IOL ($5739) compared with the conventional IOL with ($5635) or without ($4687) IRC were offset by lifetime cost savings of $34 per patient, $393 per patient achieving uncorrected visual acuity of 20/25 or better, and $349 per QALY compared with the conventional IOL without IRC. CONCLUSIONS: Toric IOLs reduce lifetime economic costs by reducing the need for glasses or contact lenses following cataract removal. These results can inform physicians and patients regarding the value of toric IOLs in the treatment of cataract and preexisting astigmatism.

Modelling lifetime cost consequences of toric compared with standard IOLs in cataract surgery of astigmatic patients in four European countries.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the lifetime costs of freeing astigmatic patients from spectacles after bilateral cataract surgery implanting toric intraocular lenses (IOLs: i.e., Acrysof Toric) versus monofocal IOLs, in France, Italy, Germany and Spain. METHODS: A Markov model followed patient cohorts from cataract surgery until death. Prevalence rates of patients not needing spectacles and the types of spectacles prescribed for those requiring them were obtained from clinical trials and national surveys. The economic perspective was societal. Mortality rates were incorporated into the model. Discount rates were applied. A sensitivity analysis was performed on non-discounted costs. RESULTS: Fewer patients with toric IOLs needed spectacles for distance vision than patients with monofocal IOLs. With monofocal IOLs more than 66% of patients needed complex spectacles compared to less than 25% implanted with toric IOLs. In France and Italy, toric IOLs reduced overall costs relative to otherwise high spectacle costs after cataract surgery. Savings were 897.0 euros (France), 822.5 euros (Germany), 895.8 euros (Italy) and 391.6 euros (Spain), without discounting. On applying a 3% discount rate the costs became 691.7 euros, 646.4 euros, 693.9 euros and 308.2 euros, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Bilateral toric IOL implants in astigmatic patients decreased spectacle dependence for distance vision and the need for complex spectacles. The economic consequences for patients depended on the national spectacle costs usually incurred after cataract surgery.

Economic appraisal of the Boston Ocular Surface Prosthesis.

PURPOSE: To perform an economic appraisal of the Boston Ocular Surface Prosthesis in patients with corneal ectasia, irregular astigmatism, or ocular surface disease. DESIGN: Cost, incremental cost-effectiveness, and benefit-cost analyses in a prospective observational study. METHODS: The effects of this scleral lens on visual functioning were measured in 69 patients who received the prosthesis in 2006 and were reassessed 6 months after fitting the prosthesis. Benefits, based on improvements in visual functioning, were converted to quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and economic values were derived using results from published studies. Costs were estimated from the provider organization's 2006 operating financial statement with additions for donated resources and future scale-up. RESULTS: Mean scores on a 100-point visual functioning questionnaire (VFQ-25) improved from 57.0 to 77.8 (P < .0001). On average, each fitted patient cost $11,841 ($6001 for clinical services and $5840 to produce the prosthesis). Patients' quality of life improved by 0.10 QALYs per year. Assuming that benefits persist for an average of 5 years, the lifetime gain was 0.48 QALYs; the average cost-effectiveness of the prosthesis was $24,900 per QALY (95% confidence interval $19,100 to $29,600), and the average benefit-cost ratio was 4.0 to 1. In patients with the lowest baseline scores (average VFQ score 38.6), results were even more favorable: cost-effectiveness $17,100 per QALY and benefit-cost ratio 5.6 to 1. CONCLUSIONS: The Boston Ocular Surface Prosthesis is cost-effective and cost beneficial in patients with severely compromised visual function attributable to ectasia, irregular astigmatism, or ocular surface disease.

First 100 CustomCornea commercial eyes.

PURPOSE: With the advent of wavefront-guided custom abalation we not only try to reach a target of 20/20 vision, but strive for improvement in what has always been most important--the quality of this vision. METHODS AND RESULTS: Insights are presented, based on clinical experience at Durrie Vision with our first 100 commercial CustomCornea eyes. We highlight key points for preparing a clinical practice for this new technology, such as staff training, marketing, and pricing. We discuss technical aspects such as patient selection and target adjustment as they relate to the Alcon LADARWave system. CONCLUSION: In our practice we have thus far had clinical success with CustomCornea; patient acceptance has been high, and by closely monitoring our first few patients we were able to reduce the number of future enhancements.

Cost-efficient vision screening for astigmatism in native american preschool children.

PURPOSE: To design and test a cost-efficient, community-based vision screening program for a population of Native American preschool children in which there is a high prevalence of astigmatism. METHODS: Based on analysis of vision screening and eye examination data from a preschool population with a 33% prevalence of astigmatism, comparative costs to conduct a 1000-child screening program with a target sensitivity of 90% were estimated for photoscreening, noncycloplegic autorefraction, autokeratometry, and Lea symbols distance visual acuity testing. Results of the cost analysis and examination of sensitivity and specificity data from the preschool population led to development of a hybrid screening program of autokeratometry and visual acuity screening with referral thresholds of 2.25 D of corneal astigmatism or inability to read a 20/63 Lea symbols line on two separate attempts. The screening program was prospectively implemented in a community-based screening of a similar cohort of 167 children, and its efficiency was evaluated by comparison to results of cycloplegic refraction. RESULTS: The community-based screening showed 96.8% sensitivity and 79.2% specificity for detecting the presence of refractive astigmatism of 1.50 D or more. CONCLUSIONS: Referring children who have at least 2.25 D of corneal astigmatism or acuity worse than 20/63 on two attempts, provides the high sensitivity and specificity associated with automated keratometry while maintaining an acuity component that can detect other causes of reduced acuity in the absence of astigmatism.

[Bilateral simultaneous LASIK. Pro and contra]. / Bilaterale simultane LASIK. Pro und Kontra.

Until recently simultaneous bilateral laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) was regarded as contraindicated in Germany. However, the procedure was sporadically performed, because it offers patient comfort and is more cost effective than sequential LASIK. Even though the complication rate is below the calculated rate of 0.01%, bilateral complications may have catastrophic effects on the patient. In addition, there is the theoretical disadvantage that the results from the first eye cannot be used for the second eye. However, this effect has yet to be clinically proven.