Cost-utility analysis of trabecular micro-bypass stents (TBS) in patients with mild-to-moderate open-angle Glaucoma in Italy.

Publisher: BioMed Central Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 101088677 Publication Model: Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1472-6963 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 14726963 NLM ISO Abbreviation: BMC Health Serv Res Subsets: MEDLINE

Original Publication: London : BioMed Central, [2001-

Glaucoma, Open-Angle*/surgery; Cost-Benefit Analysis ; Humans ; Intraocular Pressure ; Italy ; Stents

Background: Glaucoma is a disease characterized by progressive damage of the optic nerve. Several therapeutic options are available to lower intraocular pressure (IOP). In primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) patients with inadequate IOP control (or controlled with multiple medical therapies or for whom medical therapy is contraindicated), the implantation of micro-invasive glaucoma surgery devices (MIGS) and concomitant cataract surgery has proved to be more effective in reducing intraocular pressure (IOP), as compared to cataract surgery alone. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of iStent inject® device with concurrent cataract surgery vs. cataract surgery alone, in patients with mild-to-moderate POAG, adopting the Italian National Health Service (NHS) perspective.
Methods: Simulation of outcomes and costs was undertaken using a Markov model with 4 health states and one-month cycles, that is used to simulate the prognosis of these patients. Efficacy data were obtained from the randomized clinical trial (RCT). A lifetime horizon was adopted in the analysis. A discount rate of 3.5% was applied to both costs and effects. The Italian National Healthcare Service (NHS) perspective was considered, therefore only healthcare direct costs (acquisition of main interventions and subsequent procedures; medications; monitoring and follow-up; adverse events). Model robustness was tested through sensitivity analyses.
Results: Results of the base-case analysis showed that the total lifetime costs were higher in the iStent inject® + concurrent cataract surgery, compared with the cataract surgery alone group (€8368.51 vs. €7134.71 respectively). iStent inject® + concurrent cataract surgery was cost-effective vs. cataract surgery alone, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €13,037.01 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Both one-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed robustness of base-case results. The cost-effectiveness accessibility curve (CEAC) showed that iStent inject® + cataract surgery would have a 98% probability of being cost-effective, compared to cataract surgery alone, when the willingness to pay (WTP) is equal to €50,000 per QALY gained.
Conclusions: The results of the cost-utility analysis confirm that iStent inject® + cataract surgery is a cost-effective option for the treatment of patients affected by mild-to-moderate POAG, compared with cataract surgery alone, when evaluated from the Italian NHS perspective.
(© 2021. The Author(s).)

Ophthalmology. 2002 Oct;109(10):1902-13. (PMID: 12359612)
J Med Econ. 2019 Apr;22(4):390-401. (PMID: 30663456)
Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2017 Mar;45(2):120-127. (PMID: 27449488)
Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2010 Mar;21(2):118-22. (PMID: 20040874)
Can J Ophthalmol. 2017 Feb;52(1):114-124. (PMID: 28237137)
Arch Ophthalmol. 2003 Jan;121(1):48-56. (PMID: 12523884)
Eye (Lond). 2020 Jan;34(1):60-71. (PMID: 31685971)
Br J Ophthalmol. 2005 Oct;89(10):1245-9. (PMID: 16170109)
Acta Ophthalmol. 2014 Sep;92(6):513-23. (PMID: 24330516)
JAMA. 2014 May 14;311(18):1901-11. (PMID: 24825645)
J Ophthalmol. 2016;2016:1056573. (PMID: 27882243)
Arch Ophthalmol. 2002 Oct;120(10):1268-79. (PMID: 12365904)
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2009 Nov;35(11):1946-55. (PMID: 19878828)
Open Ophthalmol J. 2009 Sep 17;3:38-42. (PMID: 19816585)
Br J Ophthalmol. 2002 Oct;86(10):1080-4. (PMID: 12234882)
Open Ophthalmol J. 2009 Sep 17;3:59-64. (PMID: 19834563)
Am J Ophthalmol. 2011 Oct;152(4):515-22. (PMID: 21961848)
Eye (Lond). 2010 Dec;24(12):1759-69. (PMID: 21057519)
Clin Ophthalmol. 2014 May 07;8:875-82. (PMID: 24855336)
PLoS One. 2021 Jun 10;16(6):e0252130. (PMID: 34111130)
Ophthalmology. 2005 Jun;112(6):953-61. (PMID: 15885795)
Ophthalmology. 2012 Sep;119(9):1826-31. (PMID: 22608478)
Int Ophthalmol Clin. 2018 Summer;58(3):87-100. (PMID: 29870412)
J Ophthalmol. 2015;2015:795357. (PMID: 26587282)
Ophthalmol Ther. 2018 Jun;7(1):49-73. (PMID: 29725860)
Ophthalmology. 2011 Mar;118(3):459-67. (PMID: 20828829)
Acta Ophthalmol. 2012 Feb;90(1):20-31. (PMID: 22289192)
Ophthalmologica. 2007;221(5):340-7. (PMID: 17728557)
Ophthalmology. 2019 Jun;126(6):811-821. (PMID: 30880108)
Am J Ophthalmol. 2005 Oct;140(4):598-606. (PMID: 16226511)
J Glaucoma. 2017 Aug;26(8):687-693. (PMID: 28692597)
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2010 Mar;36(3):407-12. (PMID: 20202537)

Keywords: Cost-effectiveness; IOP reduction; Minimally invasive surgery; Trabecular bypass; glaucoma

Date Created: 20210817 Date Completed: 20210818 Latest Revision: 20240814

20250114

PMC8369731

10.1186/s12913-021-06862-x

34399759