Cost-benefit analysis of a trifocal intraocular lens versus a monofocal intraocular lens from the patient's perspective in the United States.

PURPOSE: To conduct a cost-benefit analysis of AcrySof IQ PanOptix trifocal intraocular lens (TFNT00 IOL) versus AcrySof monofocal IOL (SN60AT) from the patient perspective in the United States (US). METHODS: A de novo Markov model was developed to estimate the mean total lifetime patient costs and vision-related quality of life (measured as quality adjusted life-years (QALYs)) with each intervention (TFNT00 and SN60AT) and the incremental differences between these two treatments. The resulting incremental quality of life gain was mapped to the US patient willingness to pay threshold of $50,000 per QALY gain to estimate the lifetime net monetary value, measured as the net monetary benefit of TFNT00 IOL. Model inputs (transition probabilities, costs, discount rate, utilities, and event rates) were derived from the FDA IDE study (NCT03280108), published literature, clinical experience, and other relevant sources. RESULTS: Bilateral cataract surgery with implantation of the advanced technology IOL (AT-IOL) TFNT00 provides improved vision-related quality of life (QALY gain of 0.67) at an incremental lifetime cost of $2,783 compared to monofocal IOL. This incremental QALY gain translated into a lifetime net monetary benefit of $30,941 at the patient willingness to pay threshold of $50,000/QALY gain. Results were most sensitive to disutility due to wearing glasses, patient out of pocket costs for bilateral AT-IOL procedure, and post-operative spectacle dependence rates. CONCLUSIONS: AcrySof IQ PanOptix IOL provides greater improvement in vision related quality of life compared to no presbyopia correction with a monofocal IOL. This study shows PanOptix is a cost-beneficial treatment strategy for patients willing to pay out of pocket for cataract surgery.

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of AcrySof IQ Vivity Intraocular Lens (IOL) from Private Health Fund Perspective in Australia.

Purpose: AcrySof IQ Vivity is a unique non-diffractive extended depth of focus intraocular lens with wavefront-shaping X-WAVE technology. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of AcrySof IQ Vivity intraocular lens (DFT015) compared with standard aspheric monofocal intraocular lens (SN60WF), from a private health fund perspective in Australia. Methods: A Markov model was developed using the following health states: well, need for spectacles (near/distance/bifocal/varifocal), very bothersome visual disturbances (glare/haloes/starbursts) - with/without spectacles, and death. Model inputs were sourced from a randomized clinical study (NCT03010254), published literature, prostheses list and clinical opinion. A lifetime horizon (up to 30 years) was considered, and cost and health outcomes were discounted at 5% per annum. Model outcomes included incremental cost-effectiveness ratio defined as incremental cost per quality adjusted life year gain. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were also conducted. Results: Bilateral implantation of DFT015 intraocular lens provided quality adjusted life year gain of 0.16 at an incremental cost of AU$307 compared to bilateral SN60WF, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of AU$1908/quality adjusted life year, well below the cost-effectiveness threshold (Range: AU$45,000-AU$75,000) typically used by Medical Services Advisory Committee in Australia. Results were most sensitive to intraocular lens costs, post-operative spectacle dependence, and disutility due to wearing glasses. Robustness of the results was further confirmed by probabilistic sensitivity analysis and scenario analyses. Conclusion: AcrySof IQ Vivity intraocular lens is a highly cost-effective treatment strategy with improved vision-related quality of life outcomes for presbyopic cataract surgery patients.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of arthroscopic injection of a bioadhesive hydrogel implant in conjunction with microfracture for the treatment of focal chondral defects of the knee - an Australian perspective.

AIM: JointRep is a bioadhesive hydrogel arthroscopically injected to facilitate cartilage regeneration. The cost-effectiveness of JointRep with microfracture surgery compared to microfracture alone was evaluated from the Australian healthcare system perspective, in patients with symptomatic focal chondral defects (Outerbridge Grade 3 or 4) of the knee who had failed conservative treatment and were indicated for surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A de novo Markov model comprising two health states- 'Alive' and 'Dead' was developed. Model transition probability was based on the general population mortality rates. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores, a validated patient-reported tool measuring pain, stiffness, and physical function. The utility was derived by mapping WOMAC scores to EQ-5D scores using a published algorithm. Cost inputs were based on published Australian costs from AR-DRGs, Medicare Benefits Schedule, and Prostheses List. Model outcomes included costs, Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Base-case analysis was conducted for a time horizon of 3 years and a cycle length of 1 year. Cost and health outcomes were discounted at 5% per annum. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were also conducted. RESULTS: Total QALYs were estimated to be higher for JointRep with microfracture surgery (2.61) compared to microfracture surgery alone (1.66), an incremental gain of 0.95 QALY. JointRep with microfracture surgery was associated with an incremental cost of $6,022 compared to microfracture surgery alone, thus leading to an ICER of $6,328. Results were substantially robust to varying parameters in the sensitivity analyses conducted, alternative model settings and assumptions in scenario analyses. LIMITATIONS: The clinical inputs used in the model were based on data from short duration, non-randomized, post-market clinical trial. CONCLUSIONS: JointRep with microfracture surgery is a cost-effective treatment option compared to microfracture alone from the Australian health care system perspective.

The state of cost-utility analysis in India: A systematic review.

AIMS: Cost-utility studies are crucial tools that help policy-makers promote appropriate resource allocation. The objective of this study was to evaluate the extent and quality of cost-utility analysis (CUA) in India through a systematic literature review. METHODS: Comprehensive database search was conducted to identify the relevant literature published from November 2009 to November 2019. Gray literature and hand searches were also performed. Two researchers independently reviewed and assessed study quality using Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist. RESULTS: Thirty-five studies were included in the final review. Thirteen studies used Markov model, five used decision tree model, four used a combination of decision tree and Markov model and one each used microsimulation and dynamic compartmental model. The primary therapeutic areas targeted in CUA were infectious diseases (n = 12), ophthalmology (n = 5), and endocrine disorders (n = 4). Five studies were carried out in Tamil Nadu, four in Goa, three in Punjab, two each in Delhi, Maharashtra, and Uttar Pradesh, and one each in West Bengal and Karnataka. Twenty-three, eight, and four studies were found to be of excellent, very good, and good quality, respectively. The average quality score of the studies was 19.21 out of 24. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic literature review identified the published CUA studies in India. The overall quality of the included studies was good; however, features such as subgroup analyses and explicit study perspective were missing in several evaluations.