Surgical versus Medical Treatment of Ocular Surface Squamous Neoplasia: A Cost Comparison.

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to compare the cost associated with surgical versus interferon-alpha 2b (IFNα2b) treatment for ocular surface squamous neoplasia (OSSN). DESIGN: A matched, case-control study. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 98 patients with OSSN, 49 of whom were treated surgically and 49 of whom were treated medically. METHODS: Patients with OSSN treated with IFNα2b were matched to patients treated with surgery on the basis of age and date of treatment initiation. Financial cost to the patient was calculated using 2 different methods (hospital billing and Medicare allowable charges) and compared between the 2 groups. These fees included physician fees (clinic, pathology, anesthesia, and surgery), facility fees (clinic, pathology, and operating room), and medication costs. Time invested by patients was calculated in terms of number of visits to the hospital and compared between the 2 groups. Parking costs, transportation, caregiver wages, and lost wages were not considered in our analysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of clinic visits and cost of therapy as represented by both hospital charges and Medicare allowable charges. RESULTS: When considering cost in terms of time, the medical group had an average of 2 more visits over 1 year compared with the surgical group. Cost as represented by hospital charges was higher in the surgical group (mean, $17 598; standard deviation [SD], $7624) when compared with the IFNα2b group (mean, $4986; SD, $2040). However, cost between the 2 groups was comparable when calculated on the basis of Medicare allowable charges (surgical group: mean, $3528; SD, $1610; medical group: mean, $2831; SD, $1082; P = 1.00). The highest cost in the surgical group was the excisional biopsy (hospital billing $17 598; Medicare allowable $3528), and the highest cost in the medical group was interferon ($1172 for drops, average 8.0 bottles; $370 for injections, average 5.4 injections). CONCLUSIONS: Our data in this group of patients previously demonstrated equal efficacy of surgical versus medical treatment. In this article, we consider costs of therapy and found that medical treatment involved two more office visits, whereas surgical treatment could be more or equally costly depending on insurance coverage.

A cost-minimization analysis of tissue-engineered constructs for corneal endothelial transplantation.

Corneal endothelial transplantation or endothelial keratoplasty has become the preferred choice of transplantation for patients with corneal blindness due to endothelial dysfunction. Currently, there is a worldwide shortage of transplantable tissue, and demand is expected to increase further with aging populations. Tissue-engineered alternatives are being developed, and are likely to be available soon. However, the cost of these constructs may impair their widespread use. A cost-minimization analysis comparing tissue-engineered constructs to donor tissue procured from eye banks for endothelial keratoplasty was performed. Both initial investment costs and recurring costs were considered in the analysis to arrive at a final tissue cost per transplant. The clinical outcomes of endothelial keratoplasty with tissue-engineered constructs and with donor tissue procured from eye banks were assumed to be equivalent. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to simulate various possible scenarios, and to determine the robustness of the results. A tissue engineering strategy was cheaper in both investment cost and recurring cost. Tissue-engineered constructs for endothelial keratoplasty could be produced at a cost of US$880 per transplant. In contrast, utilizing donor tissue procured from eye banks for endothelial keratoplasty required US$3,710 per transplant. Sensitivity analyses performed further support the results of this cost-minimization analysis across a wide range of possible scenarios. The use of tissue-engineered constructs for endothelial keratoplasty could potentially increase the supply of transplantable tissue and bring the costs of corneal endothelial transplantation down, making this intervention accessible to a larger group of patients. Tissue-engineering strategies for corneal epithelial constructs or other tissue types, such as pancreatic islet cells, should also be subject to similar pharmacoeconomic analyses.

Comparative cost-effectiveness analysis of descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty versus penetrating keratoplasty in the United States.

PURPOSE: To perform a comparative cost-effectiveness analysis of Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) and penetrating keratoplasty (PK) for corneal endothelial disease. DESIGN: Retrospective cost-effectiveness analysis. METHODS: This cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from a third-party payer perspective with a 5-year time horizon. Probabilities of outcomes and complications of each of the procedures were calculated based on review of the published literature. A model was constructed to compare the costs and utilities associated with DSAEK and PK. Costs of donor tissue preparation, surgery, follow-up, postoperative complications, and procedures were considered. Utility values were based on quality-adjusted life years associated with visual acuity outcomes. Both costs and utilities were discounted at 3% per year. Sensitivity analyses were performed on key model inputs. RESULTS: Base case analysis found DSAEK to be less costly compared with PK ($9362 vs $10 239), with greater utility (3.15 vs 2.47 quality-adjusted life years). Sensitivity analyses revealed that even at graft failure rates for DSAEK approaching the rates for PK, DSAEK would still reduce costs. Varying the dislocation rate in our model showed that even at dislocation rates approaching 50%, DSAEK remained less costly. Further, with DSAEK rejection rates as high as 28%, DSAEK would remain a dominant procedure over PK. CONCLUSIONS: Comparative cost-effectiveness analysis of DSAEK versus PK indicates favorable cost and utility outcomes associated with DSAEK for treatment of corneal endothelial disease. Longer follow-up of DSAEK outcomes will provide more accurate information regarding long-term cost-effectiveness of the procedure.

Cost-effectiveness of Descemet's stripping endothelial keratoplasty versus penetrating keratoplasty.

PURPOSE: Selective endothelial transplantation in the form of Descemet's stripping endothelial keratoplasty (DSEK) is rapidly replacing traditional full-thickness penetrating keratoplasty (PK) for endothelial disease. An incremental cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to determine whether the benefits of DSEK are worth the additional costs. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Patients at the Singapore National Eye Center, a tertiary eye center in Singapore, with Fuchs' dystrophy or bullous keratopathy who underwent either PK or DSEK. INTERVENTION: Patients underwent either PK (n = 171) or DSEK (n = 93) from January 2001 through December 2007. Data were collected from inpatient and outpatient notes corresponding to the time immediately before the procedure to up to 3 years after. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Improvements in best spectacle-corrected visual acuity were used to calculate the increase in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) 3 years after the procedure. This was combined with hospital charges (a proxy for costs) to determine incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) comparing PK with no intervention and DSEK with PK. RESULTS: Three-year charges for DSEK and PK were $7476 and $7236, respectively. The regression-adjusted improvement in visual acuity for PK relative to no intervention was -0.613 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) units (P<0.001), and for DSEK relative to PK, it was -0.199 logMAR units (P = 0.045). The regression-adjusted marginal gain in utility for PK relative to no intervention was 0.128 QALYs (P<0.001) and for DSEK relative to PK was 0.046 QALYs (P = 0.031). This resulted in ICERs of $56 409 per QALY for PK relative to no intervention and $5209 per QALY for the more expensive DSEK relative to PK. CONCLUSIONS: If the goal is to maximize societal health gains given fixed resources, DSEK should be the preferred strategy. For a fixed budget, it is possible to achieve greater QALY gains by providing DSEK to as many patients as possible (and nothing to others), rather than providing PK.

Economic evaluation of endothelial keratoplasty techniques and penetrating keratoplasty in the Netherlands.

PURPOSE: To evaluate cost-effectiveness of penetrating keratoplasty (PK), femtosecond laser-assisted Descemet stripping endothelial keratoplasty (FS-DSEK), and Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK). DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis based on data from a randomized multicenter clinical trial and a noncomparative prospective study. METHODS: Data of 118 patients with corneal endothelial dysfunction were analyzed in the economic evaluation. Forty patients were included in the PK group, 36 in the FS-DSEK group, and 42 in the DSAEK group. The primary incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was the incremental costs per clinically improved patient, defined as a patient with a combined effectiveness of both a clinically improved BSCVA (defined as an improvement of at least 2 lines) and a clinically acceptable refractive astigmatism (defined as less than or equal to 3.0 diopters). Analysis was based on a 1-year follow-up period after transplantation. RESULTS: The percentage of treated patients who met the combined effectiveness measures was 52% for DSAEK, 44% for PK, and 43% for FS-DSEK. Mean total costs per patient were €6674 (US$7942), €12 443 (US$14 807), and €7072 (US$8416) in the PK group, FS-DSEK group, and DSAEK group, respectively. FS-DSEK was less effective and more costly compared to both DSAEK and PK. DSAEK was more costly but also more effective compared to PK, resulting in incremental costs of €4975 (US$5920) per additional clinically improved patient. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study show that FS-DSEK was not cost-effective compared to PK and DSAEK. DSAEK, on the other hand, was more costly but also more effective compared to PK. Including societal costs, a longer follow-up period and preparation of the lamellar transplant buttons in a national cornea bank could improve the cost-effectiveness of DSAEK.

Estimating the annual economic burden of illness caused by contact lens-associated corneal infiltrative events in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to estimate the annual cost of illness caused by contact lens-associated corneal infiltrative events (CL-CIEs) among soft CL wearers in the United States. METHODS: This study was conducted in the United States. The study population was comprised of daily wear contact lens users in the United States, which number approximately 35 million. A comprehensive review of the medical literature for data on the annual incidence of CL-CIEs was conducted. Cost estimates were drawn from the literature and published tariffs. The perspective of the study was a U.S. healthcare perspective and because of the short duration of most CL-CIEs, no discounting was performed. The main outcome measure involved the total annual number of persons with CL-CIEs and associated direct and indirect costs. RESULTS: In the United States in 2010, it was calculated that a total of 32,031 nonsevere and 17,248 severe CL-CIEs occurred, respectively. The cost per nonsevere and severe CL-CIEs was estimated to be $1,002.90 and $1,496.00, respectively. Overall, the total estimated direct and indirect cost of nonsevere CL-CIEs and severe CL-CIEs in the United States in 2010 was estimated to be $58 million. CONCLUSIONS: This study estimated the economic burden of illness imposed by CL-CIEs on both the healthcare system and individual patients in the United States. Strategies designed to minimize the occurrence and impact of CL-CIEs, such as using improved lens care regimens and lens case management, the use of daily disposable lenses, and more efficacious ocular antibiotics may be beneficial in reducing this economic burden.

Economic evaluation of deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty versus penetrating keratoplasty in The Netherlands.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the cost effectiveness of deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty (DALK) versus penetrating keratoplasty (PK) in The Netherlands. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomized, multicenter clinical trial. METHODS: Fifty-three patients with corneal stromal pathologic features not affecting the endothelium were included with 28 patients in the DALK group and 25 in the PK group. Quality of life was measured before surgery and 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. The main outcome measures were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios per clinically improved patient on the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire and per patient with endothelial cell loss of maximally 20% within the first year. RESULTS: Mean total bootstrapped costs per patient were €7607 (US$10,498) in the DALK group and €6552 (US$9042) in the PK group. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were €9977 (US$13,768) per clinically improved patient on the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire and €6900 (US$9522) per patient with cell loss of maximally 20%. In patients without perforation of the Descemet membrane, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €5250 (US$7245) per patient. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that DALK is more costly and more effective as compared with PK. Results on the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire were in favor of DALK, and endothelial cell loss in DALK patients remained stable after 6 months, whereas cell loss in PK patients continued. Furthermore, DALK procedures performed without perforation of the Descemet membrane were more effective. However, because it is unknown what society is willing to pay for an additional improved patient, cost effectiveness of DALK within a limited follow-up period of 12 months is unclear. Cost effectiveness of DALK may improve over time because of lower graft failure.

Cost effectiveness of the type II Boston keratoprosthesis.

PURPOSE: Despite demonstrated cost effectiveness, not all corneal disorders are amenable to type I Boston keratoprosthesis (KPro) implantation. This includes patients with autoimmune diseases, such as Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis. Type II KPro is implanted through the eyelids in severe dry eye and cicatricial diseases, and its cost effectiveness was sought. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a retrospective chart review, 29 patients who underwent type II KPro surgery at the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary between the years 2000 and 2009 were identified. A total of 11 patients had 5-year follow-up data. Average cost effectiveness was determined by cost-utility analysis, comparing type II KPro surgery with no further intervention. RESULTS: Using the current parameters, the cost utility of KPro from third-party insurer (Medicare) perspective was 63,196 $/quality-adjusted life year . CONCLUSION: Efforts to refer those less likely to benefit from traditional corneal transplantation or type I KPro, for type II KPro surgery, may decrease both patient and societal costs.

Cost-effectiveness of the Boston keratoprosthesis.

PURPOSE: To conduct a cost-utility analysis and determine the cost-effectiveness of the Boston Keratoprosthesis (Boston Kpro). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: setting: The Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary corneal service. patients: Inclusion required a minimum 2-year follow-up. Patients with autoimmune diseases and chemical burns were excluded. Eighty-two patients were included with various indications for surgery. intervention: The keratoprosthesis is a collar button-shaped polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) device consisting of 2 curved plates sandwiched around a corneal donor (allo)graft. The device is assembled intraoperatively and sutured to a patient's eye after removing the diseased cornea. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Average cost-effectiveness of the keratoprosthesis was determined by cost-utility analysis, using expected-value calculations and time-tradeoff utilities. The comparative effectiveness, or gain in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), was also sought. Cost-effectiveness was compared to recently published data on penetrating keratoplasty (PK). RESULTS: A total discounted incremental QALY gain for the Boston Kpro of 0.763 correlated with a conferred QALY gain of 20.3% for the average patient. The average cost-effectiveness of the keratoprosthesis was $16 140 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Comparable to corneal transplantation, with a cost-effectiveness between $12 000 and $16 000 per QALY, the keratoprosthesis can be considered highly cost-effective.

Cost utility for penetrating keratoplasty in patients with poor binocular vision.

PURPOSE: Cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analyses are of increasing importance to clinicians and health policy experts. This study determines the costs in Germany and other countries in relation to gain of utility for patients with bilateral poor vision owing to corneal disease undergoing penetrating keratoplasty (PK) in 1 eye. DESIGN: A cost-utility analysis was performed using retrospective clinical data and high-level evidence-based data. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty patients (mean age, 46.3 years) with bilateral poor vision who underwent PK for corneal disease. METHODS: Visual acuity and utility values were obtained before and 1 year after PK and after suture removal. A 10-year graft survival rate of 80% was assumed. Expenses included costs for the corneal transplant and surgery, medication, and optical rehabilitation. A discount rate of 5% was applied for costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Cost-utility analysis encompassed a 10-year period after surgery. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The number of QALYs was calculated for the study group undergoing PK. This was divided into the cost of the procedure to get the number of euros spent per QALY gained. RESULTS: Median binocular preoperative visual acuity was -log mean angle of resolution (-logMAR) 0.91+/-0.53 (Snellen equivalent 20/160) yielding a utility value of 0.67. After suture removal and optical rehabilitation, binocular visual acuity increased to median -logMAR 0.36+/-0.36 (20/46) with a utility value of 0.79. Over the 10 years after surgery and considering graft survival and discounting, a cost utility of 9551 euros per QALY was gained (equivalent to US11,557 dollars). One-way sensitivity analysis yielded a range from 7706 euros to 12874 euros per QALY, highlighting the robustness of the model. CONCLUSIONS: Although an expensive procedure, PK is cost effective in patients with bilateral poor vision.