Resultados coste-efectividad del implante de dexametasona en edema macular / A cost-effectiveness study of dexamethasone implants in macular edema

OBJETIVO: Analizar el beneficio coste-efectividad del implante intravítreo de dexametasona (Ozurdex®, Allergan, Irvine, CA, EE. UU.) en sus aplicaciones clínicamente relevantes. MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS: Un total de 88 ojos de 86 pacientes con edema macular de > 300 μm medido mediante tomografía de coherencia óptica (Zeiss Cirrus, Dublín, CA, EE. UU.) fueron incluidos en este trabajo retrospectivo de 2 años, con un seguimiento mínimo de 6 meses. Se incluyeron 3 grupos de pacientes: el grupo 1 con edema macular en oclusión venosa retiniana, el grupo 2 con uveítis posterior no infecciosa y el grupo 3 con edema macular diabético, estando este fuera de indicación pero avalado por la literatura médica. Antes del implante y los días 1, 30, 60, 90 y 180 se evaluó la agudeza visual corregida (Snellen), espesor retiniano central, presión intraocular y biomicroscopia. Los análisis de coste-beneficio se tabularon por línea de visión ganada, comparando las principales alternativas terapéuticas, y se valoró el perfil de seguridad del implante intravítreo de dexametasona (Ozurdex®; Allergan, Irvine, CA, EE. UU.). RESULTADOS: Los resultados de este estudio no difirieron de los publicados por otros, en términos de mejoría de la agudeza visual en el 63,3% y del espesor macular central en el 97%. En los casos de recidiva, se produjo a los 120 días de media; la necesidad de retratamiento fue del 40,9%. Entre los efectos secundarios, el incremento de presión intraocular > 23 mm Hg se produjo en el 29,54%, controlándose con tratamiento tópico, excepto un 1,13% de los casos que requirieron tratamiento quirúrgico. El desarrollo de catarata fue del 44,7%, requiriendo cirugía un 10,6%. Los resultados del tratamiento mostraron una menor necesidad en la frecuencia del uso de Ozurdex® frente a otros tratamientos para el control de la enfermedad, convirtiéndose en una opción que permite el ahorro de costes. DISCUSIÓN: Los análisis coste-efectividad son clínicamente relevantes cuando se aplican estrategias terapéuticas en pacientes con edema macular. El implante de dexametasona intravítrea es una opción terapéutica segura y eficiente

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the cost-effectiveness and benefits of a dexamethasone intravitreal implant (Ozurdex®, Allergan, Irvine, CA, USA.) in its clinically relevant applications. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 88 eyes of 86 patients with macular edema of > 300 μm measured by optical coherence tomography (Cirrus Zeiss, Dublin, CA, USA) were included in this two-year retrospective study, with a minimum of 6 months follow-up. The patients were divide into 3 groups: group 1 with macular edema in retinal vein occlusion, group 2 with non-infectious posterior uveitis, and group 3 with diabetic macular edema. The treatment was off-label but supported by the literature. Before implantation, and on days 1, 30, 60, 90 and 180, corrected visual acuity (Snellen), central retinal thickness, intraocular pressure and biomicroscopy were evaluated. The cost-benefit analysis was tabulated by line of visual acuity gained, comparing the main therapeutic alternatives and assessment of the safety profile of the dexamethasone intravitreal implant (Ozurdex®, Allergan, Irvine, CA, USA). RESULTS: The results of this study did not differ from the published studies, in terms of visual acuity improvement in 63.3% of cases, and with central macular thickness improvement in 97% of cases. There were relapses, which occurred after 120 days on average, and the need for retreatment was 40.9%. Increased intraocular pressure >23 mm Hg was among the side effects in 29.54%, and was controlled with topical treatment, except in 1.13% requiring surgical treatment. The development of cataract was 44.7%, and 10.6% required surgery. Treatment results showed less frequent use of Ozurdex® than other treatments for disease control, being a cost saving option. DISCUSSION: Cost-effectiveness analyses are clinically relevant when applying treatment strategies in patients with macular edema. Dexamethasone intravitreal implant appears to be a safe and efficient therapy

[A cost-effectiveness study of dexamethasone implants in macular edema]. / Resultados coste-efectividad del implante de dexametasona en edema macular.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the cost-effectiveness and benefits of a dexamethasone intravitreal implant (Ozurdex®, Allergan, Irvine, CA, USA.) in its clinically relevant applications. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 88 eyes of 86 patients with macular edema of > 300 µm measured by optical coherence tomography (Cirrus Zeiss, Dublin, CA, USA) were included in this two-year retrospective study, with a minimum of 6 months follow-up. The patients were divide into 3 groups: group 1 with macular edema in retinal vein occlusion, group 2 with non-infectious posterior uveitis, and group 3 with diabetic macular edema. The treatment was off-label but supported by the literature. Before implantation, and on days 1, 30, 60, 90 and 180, corrected visual acuity (Snellen), central retinal thickness, intraocular pressure and biomicroscopy were evaluated. The cost-benefit analysis was tabulated by line of visual acuity gained, comparing the main therapeutic alternatives and assessment of the safety profile of the dexamethasone intravitreal implant (Ozurdex®, Allergan, Irvine, CA, USA). RESULTS: The results of this study did not differ from the published studies, in terms of visual acuity improvement in 63.3% of cases, and with central macular thickness improvement in 97% of cases. There were relapses, which occurred after 120 days on average, and the need for retreatment was 40.9%. Increased intraocular pressure >23 mm Hg was among the side effects in 29.54%, and was controlled with topical treatment, except in 1.13% requiring surgical treatment. The development of cataract was 44.7%, and 10.6% required surgery. Treatment results showed less frequent use of Ozurdex® than other treatments for disease control, being a cost saving option. DISCUSSION: Cost-effectiveness analyses are clinically relevant when applying treatment strategies in patients with macular edema. Dexamethasone intravitreal implant appears to be a safe and efficient therapy.

Myopia, an underrated global challenge to vision: where the current data takes us on myopia control.

Myopia is the most frequent cause of distance impairment in the world and is creating an alarming global epidemic with deleterious ramifications for the quality of life and economic health of individuals and nations as a whole. In addition to being immediately disadvantageous, myopia increases the risk of serious disorders such as myopic macular degeneration, retinal detachment, glaucoma, and cataract and is a leading cause of visual impairment and blindness across many countries. The reduction in age of onset of myopia is of great concern since the earlier the onset, the more myopic the individual will become, with all the attendant increased risks of accompanying debilitating eye conditions. The economic burden is great; both in consequences of uncorrected refractive error and also in the provision of devices for correcting visual acuity. Earlier onset of myopia increases the lifetime economic burden related to loss of productivity and independence, leading to a reduced quality of life. Recent data suggest addressing accommodation per se has little direct amelioration of myopia progression. Pharmacological interventions that effect changes in the sclera show promising efficacy, whereas optical interventions based on a myopic shift in the retinal image are proving to effect up to 55% reduction in the rate of progression of myopia. Early contact lens and spectacle interventions that reduce the rate of progression of myopia are able to significantly reduce the burden of myopia. These non-pharmacological interventions show profound promise in reducing the overall associated morbidity of myopia.

Clinical management of progressive myopia.

Myopia has been increasing in prevalence throughout the world, reaching over 90% in some East Asian populations. There is increasing evidence that whereas genetics clearly have an important role, the type of visual environment to which one is exposed to likely influences the onset, progression, and cessation of myopia. Consequently, attempts to either modify the environment or to reduce the exposure of the eye to various environmental stimuli to eye growth through the use of various optical devices are well under way at research centers around the globe. The most promising of current treatments include low-percentage atropine, bifocal soft contact lenses, orthokeratology, and multifocal spectacles. These methods are discussed briefly and are then categorized in terms of their expected degree of myopia progression control. A clinical strategy is presented for selecting the most effective treatment for the appropriate type of patient at the optimal stage of refractive development to achieve the maximum control of myopia progression.