Safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of immediate versus delayed sequential bilateral cataract surgery in the Netherlands (BICAT-NL study): a multicentre, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In an ageing population, efficiency improvements are required to assure future accessibility of cataract care. We aim to address remaining knowledge gaps by evaluating the safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of immediate sequential bilateral cataract surgery (ISBCS) versus delayed sequential bilateral cataract surgery (DSBCS). We hypothesised that ISBCS is non-inferior to DSBCS, regarding safety and effectiveness, and being superior in cost-effectiveness. METHODS: We did a multicentre, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial, which included participants from ten Dutch hospitals. Eligible participants were 18 years or older, underwent expected uncomplicated surgery, and had no increased risk of endophthalmitis or refractive surprise. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to either the ISBCS (intervention) group or DSBCS (conventional procedure) group, using a web-based system stratified by centre and axial length. Participants and outcome assessors were not masked to the treatment groups because of the nature of the intervention. The primary outcome was the proportion of second eyes with a target refractive outcome of 1·0 dioptre (D) or less 4 weeks postoperatively, with a non-inferiority margin of -5% for ISBCS versus DSBCS. For the trial-based economic evaluation, the primary endpoint was the incremental societal costs per quality-adjusted life-year. All analyses were done by a modified intention-to-treat principle. Costs were calculated by multiplying volumes of resource use with unit cost prices and converted to 2020 Euros (€) and US$. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03400124, and is now closed for recruitment. FINDINGS: Between Sept 4, 2018, and July 10, 2020, a total of 865 patients were randomly assigned to either the ISBCS group (427 [49%] patients; 854 eyes) or DSBCS group (438 [51%] patients; 876 eyes). In the modified intention-to-treat analysis, the proportion of second eyes with a target refraction of 1·0 D or less was 97% (404 of 417 patients) in the ISBCS group versus 98% (407 of 417) in the DSBCS group. The percentage difference was -1% (90% CI -3 to 1; p=0·526), thereby establishing non-inferiority for ISBCS compared with DSBCS. Endophthalmitis was not observed or reported in either group. Adverse events were comparable between groups, with only a significant difference in disturbing anisometropia (p=0·0001). Societal costs were €403 (US$507) lower with ISBCS than with DSBCS. The cost-effectiveness probability of ISBCS versus DSBCS was 100% across the willingness-to-pay range of €2500-80 000 (US$3145-100 629) per quality-adjusted life-year. INTERPRETATION: Our results showed non-inferiority of ISBCS versus DSBCS regarding effectiveness outcomes, comparable safety, and superior cost-effectiveness of ISBCS. National cost savings could amount to €27·4 million (US$34·5 million) annually, advocating for ISBCS if strict inclusion criteria are applied. FUNDING: Research grant from The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw) and Dutch Ophthalmological Society.

A view from the clinic - Perspectives from Dutch patients and professionals on high myopia care.

PURPOSE: To understand and compare perspectives of patients and professionals on current ophthalmologic care for high myopia, and to identify challenges and future opportunities. METHODS: Self-reported data were collected through two online questionnaires. Patient perspective was obtained from highly myopic members of a patient organisation based in the Netherlands using a 17-item questionnaire consisting of open and multiple-choice questions regarding personal experience with myopia care. The ophthalmologist perspective was obtained from practising Dutch ophthalmologists with a 12-item questionnaire of multiple-choice questions on work-related demographics, myopia care in daily practice and need for improvement. The response rate for patients was 27% (n = 136/500) and for ophthalmologists, 24% (n = 169/716). RESULTS: Patients were highly concerned about personal progressive loss of vision (69%) and feared their psychological well-being (82%) in case this would happen. The quality of performance of care provided by ophthalmologists was rated as excellent or satisfactory by 64% of the patients. These ratings for multidisciplinary care and insurance reimbursement were as low as 28% and 18% respectively. The mean concern among ophthalmologists about the rise in high myopia was 6.9 (SEM 0.1) on a 10-point scale. Sixty-nine per cent of the ophthalmologists reported that asymptomatic myopic patients should not be examined regularly at outpatient clinics. Ophthalmologists urged the development of clinical guidelines (74%), but did report (95%) that they informed patients about risk factors and complications. This contrasted with the view of patients, of whom 42% were discontent with information provided by ophthalmologists. CONCLUSIONS: These questionnaires demonstrated that the current clinical care delivered to highly myopic patients is in need of improvement. The expected higher demand for myopia care in the near future requires preferred practice patterns, professionals specifically trained to manage myopic pathology, accurate and comprehensive information exchange and collaboration of in- and out-of-hospital professionals across the full eye care chain.

Traumatic cataract in a young patient with myopia.

A 36-year-old man was referred to our clinic because of traumatic cataract in his right eye, which had developed after being hit in the eye with a badminton shuttle as a child. He noticed that his vision in his right eye was gradually becoming worse. His refraction, corrected with spectacles, was -4.25 -2.00 × 115 in his right eye and -5.50 -1.50 × 57 in his left eye, with a corrected distance visual acuity of 20/32 and 20/20, respectively. Because of allergies, the patient never tolerated contact lens wear for more than 2 hours. On a slitlamp examination, we confirmed anterior subcapsular star-like cataract without any signs of zonulolysis. Optical biometry showed an axial length of 25.73 mm and 26.66 mm and an anterior chamber depth of 3.70 mm and 3.78 mm in the right and left eyes. Keratometric astigmatism measured by optical biometry was 1.56 diopters (D) at 30 degrees and 1.12 D at 138 degrees for the right and left eyes, and Scheimpflug tomography showed 1.1 D of regular astigmatism at 33 degrees in the right eye, and 0.9 D of regular astigmatism at 130 degrees in the left eye. The patient is a professional photographer and asked for a treatment that would still allow him to be able to perform his job: he wants to read all the buttons on the camera up close and focus on the scenery in the distance. What is your advice on this challenging case?