Trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis of ultrathin Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (UT-DSAEK) versus DSAEK

Rob W P Simons; Mor M Dickman; Frank J H M van den Biggelaar; Carmen D Dirksen; Jeroen Van Rooij; Lies Remeijer; Allegonda Van der Lelij; Robert H J Wijdh; Pieter J Kruit; Rudy M M A Nuijts

doi:10.1111/aos.14126

Trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis of ultrathin Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (UT-DSAEK) versus DSAEK

Rob W P Simons, Mor M Dickman, Frank J H M van den Biggelaar, Carmen D Dirksen, Jeroen Van Rooij, Lies Remeijer, Allegonda Van der Lelij, Robert H J Wijdh, Pieter J Kruit, Rudy M M A Nuijts

Cornea

Onderzoeksoutput: Bijdrage aan tijdschrift › Artikel › Onderzoek › peer review

Samenvatting

PURPOSE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ultrathin Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (UT-DSAEK) versus standard DSAEK.

METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis using data from a multicentre randomized clinical trial was performed. The time horizon was 12 months postoperatively. Sixty-four eyes of 64 patients with Fuchs' endothelial dystrophy were included and randomized to UT-DSAEK (n = 33) or DSAEK (n = 31). Relevant resources from healthcare and societal perspectives were included in the cost analysis. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were determined using the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 questionnaire. The main outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER; incremental societal costs per QALY).

RESULTS: Societal costs were €9431 (US$11 586) for UT-DSAEK and €9110 (US$11 192) for DSAEK. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were 0.74 in both groups. The ICER indicated inferiority of UT-DSAEK. The cost-effectiveness probability ranged from 37% to 42%, assuming the maximum acceptable ICER ranged from €2500-€80 000 (US$3071-US$98 280) per QALY. Additional analyses were performed omitting one UT-DSAEK patient who required a regraft [ICER €9057 (US$11 127) per QALY, cost-effectiveness probability: 44-62%] and correcting QALYs for an imbalance in baseline utilities [ICER €23 827 (US$29 271) per QALY, cost-effectiveness probability: 36-59%]. Furthermore, the ICER was €2101 (US$2581) per patient with clinical improvement in best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (≥0.2 logMAR) and €3274 (US$4022) per patient with clinical improvement in National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire-25 composite score (≥10 points).

CONCLUSION: The base case analysis favoured DSAEK, since costs of UT-DSAEK were higher while QALYs were comparable. However, additional analyses revealed no preference for UT-DSAEK or DSAEK. Further cost-effectiveness studies are required to reduce uncertainty.

Originele taal-2	Engels
Pagina's (van-tot)	756-763
Aantal pagina's	8
Tijdschrift	Acta Ophthalmologica
Volume	97
Nummer van het tijdschrift	8
DOI's	https://doi.org/10.1111/aos.14126
Status	Gepubliceerd - dec. 2019

Toegang tot document

10.1111/aos.14126Licentie: CC BY-NC

Citeer dit

Simons, R. W. P., Dickman, M. M., van den Biggelaar, F. J. H. M., Dirksen, C. D., Van Rooij, J., Remeijer, L., Van der Lelij, A., Wijdh, R. H. J., Kruit, P. J., & Nuijts, R. M. M. A. (2019). Trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis of ultrathin Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (UT-DSAEK) versus DSAEK. Acta Ophthalmologica, 97(8), 756-763. https://doi.org/10.1111/aos.14126

@article{02df804f030c46938414fd9f59067630,

title = "Trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis of ultrathin Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (UT-DSAEK) versus DSAEK",

abstract = "PURPOSE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ultrathin Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (UT-DSAEK) versus standard DSAEK.METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis using data from a multicentre randomized clinical trial was performed. The time horizon was 12 months postoperatively. Sixty-four eyes of 64 patients with Fuchs' endothelial dystrophy were included and randomized to UT-DSAEK (n = 33) or DSAEK (n = 31). Relevant resources from healthcare and societal perspectives were included in the cost analysis. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were determined using the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 questionnaire. The main outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER; incremental societal costs per QALY).RESULTS: Societal costs were €9431 (US$11 586) for UT-DSAEK and €9110 (US$11 192) for DSAEK. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were 0.74 in both groups. The ICER indicated inferiority of UT-DSAEK. The cost-effectiveness probability ranged from 37% to 42%, assuming the maximum acceptable ICER ranged from €2500-€80 000 (US$3071-US$98 280) per QALY. Additional analyses were performed omitting one UT-DSAEK patient who required a regraft [ICER €9057 (US$11 127) per QALY, cost-effectiveness probability: 44-62%] and correcting QALYs for an imbalance in baseline utilities [ICER €23 827 (US$29 271) per QALY, cost-effectiveness probability: 36-59%]. Furthermore, the ICER was €2101 (US$2581) per patient with clinical improvement in best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (≥0.2 logMAR) and €3274 (US$4022) per patient with clinical improvement in National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire-25 composite score (≥10 points).CONCLUSION: The base case analysis favoured DSAEK, since costs of UT-DSAEK were higher while QALYs were comparable. However, additional analyses revealed no preference for UT-DSAEK or DSAEK. Further cost-effectiveness studies are required to reduce uncertainty.",

keywords = "Aged, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Descemet Stripping Endothelial Keratoplasty/economics, Female, Fuchs' Endothelial Dystrophy/economics, Health Care Costs/statistics & numerical data, Humans, Male, Netherlands, Ophthalmology/economics, Retrospective Studies, Visual Acuity",

author = "Simons, {Rob W P} and Dickman, {Mor M} and {van den Biggelaar}, {Frank J H M} and Dirksen, {Carmen D} and {Van Rooij}, Jeroen and Lies Remeijer and {Van der Lelij}, Allegonda and Wijdh, {Robert H J} and Kruit, {Pieter J} and Nuijts, {Rudy M M A}",

note = "{\textcopyright} 2019 The Authors. Acta Ophthalmologica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica Foundation.",

year = "2019",

month = dec,

doi = "10.1111/aos.14126",

language = "English",

volume = "97",

pages = "756--763",

number = "8",

}

Simons, RWP, Dickman, MM, van den Biggelaar, FJHM, Dirksen, CD, Van Rooij, J , Remeijer, L, Van der Lelij, A, Wijdh, RHJ, Kruit, PJ & Nuijts, RMMA 2019, 'Trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis of ultrathin Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (UT-DSAEK) versus DSAEK', Acta Ophthalmologica, vol. 97, nr. 8, blz. 756-763. https://doi.org/10.1111/aos.14126

TY - JOUR

T1 - Trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis of ultrathin Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (UT-DSAEK) versus DSAEK

AU - Simons, Rob W P

AU - Dickman, Mor M

AU - van den Biggelaar, Frank J H M

AU - Dirksen, Carmen D

AU - Van Rooij, Jeroen

AU - Remeijer, Lies

AU - Van der Lelij, Allegonda

AU - Wijdh, Robert H J

AU - Kruit, Pieter J

AU - Nuijts, Rudy M M A

PY - 2019/12

Y1 - 2019/12

N2 - PURPOSE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ultrathin Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (UT-DSAEK) versus standard DSAEK.METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis using data from a multicentre randomized clinical trial was performed. The time horizon was 12 months postoperatively. Sixty-four eyes of 64 patients with Fuchs' endothelial dystrophy were included and randomized to UT-DSAEK (n = 33) or DSAEK (n = 31). Relevant resources from healthcare and societal perspectives were included in the cost analysis. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were determined using the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 questionnaire. The main outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER; incremental societal costs per QALY).RESULTS: Societal costs were €9431 (US$11 586) for UT-DSAEK and €9110 (US$11 192) for DSAEK. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were 0.74 in both groups. The ICER indicated inferiority of UT-DSAEK. The cost-effectiveness probability ranged from 37% to 42%, assuming the maximum acceptable ICER ranged from €2500-€80 000 (US$3071-US$98 280) per QALY. Additional analyses were performed omitting one UT-DSAEK patient who required a regraft [ICER €9057 (US$11 127) per QALY, cost-effectiveness probability: 44-62%] and correcting QALYs for an imbalance in baseline utilities [ICER €23 827 (US$29 271) per QALY, cost-effectiveness probability: 36-59%]. Furthermore, the ICER was €2101 (US$2581) per patient with clinical improvement in best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (≥0.2 logMAR) and €3274 (US$4022) per patient with clinical improvement in National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire-25 composite score (≥10 points).CONCLUSION: The base case analysis favoured DSAEK, since costs of UT-DSAEK were higher while QALYs were comparable. However, additional analyses revealed no preference for UT-DSAEK or DSAEK. Further cost-effectiveness studies are required to reduce uncertainty.

AB - PURPOSE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ultrathin Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (UT-DSAEK) versus standard DSAEK.METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis using data from a multicentre randomized clinical trial was performed. The time horizon was 12 months postoperatively. Sixty-four eyes of 64 patients with Fuchs' endothelial dystrophy were included and randomized to UT-DSAEK (n = 33) or DSAEK (n = 31). Relevant resources from healthcare and societal perspectives were included in the cost analysis. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were determined using the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 questionnaire. The main outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER; incremental societal costs per QALY).RESULTS: Societal costs were €9431 (US$11 586) for UT-DSAEK and €9110 (US$11 192) for DSAEK. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were 0.74 in both groups. The ICER indicated inferiority of UT-DSAEK. The cost-effectiveness probability ranged from 37% to 42%, assuming the maximum acceptable ICER ranged from €2500-€80 000 (US$3071-US$98 280) per QALY. Additional analyses were performed omitting one UT-DSAEK patient who required a regraft [ICER €9057 (US$11 127) per QALY, cost-effectiveness probability: 44-62%] and correcting QALYs for an imbalance in baseline utilities [ICER €23 827 (US$29 271) per QALY, cost-effectiveness probability: 36-59%]. Furthermore, the ICER was €2101 (US$2581) per patient with clinical improvement in best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (≥0.2 logMAR) and €3274 (US$4022) per patient with clinical improvement in National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire-25 composite score (≥10 points).CONCLUSION: The base case analysis favoured DSAEK, since costs of UT-DSAEK were higher while QALYs were comparable. However, additional analyses revealed no preference for UT-DSAEK or DSAEK. Further cost-effectiveness studies are required to reduce uncertainty.

KW - Aged

KW - Cost-Benefit Analysis

KW - Descemet Stripping Endothelial Keratoplasty/economics

KW - Female

KW - Fuchs' Endothelial Dystrophy/economics

KW - Health Care Costs/statistics & numerical data

KW - Humans

KW - Male

KW - Netherlands

KW - Ophthalmology/economics

KW - Retrospective Studies

KW - Visual Acuity

U2 - 10.1111/aos.14126

DO - 10.1111/aos.14126

M3 - Article

C2 - 31025804

SN - 1755-375X

VL - 97

SP - 756

EP - 763

JO - Acta Ophthalmologica

JF - Acta Ophthalmologica

IS - 8

ER -

Trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis of ultrathin Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (UT-DSAEK) versus DSAEK

Samenvatting

Toegang tot document

Vingerafdruk

Citeer dit