Systematic Literature Review of Clinical, Economic, and Humanistic Outcomes Following Minimally Invasive Glaucoma Surgery or Selective Laser Trabeculoplasty for the Treatment of Open-Angle Glaucoma with or Without Cataract Extraction.

Introduction: Selective laser trabeculoplasty (SLT) and minimally invasive glaucoma surgery (MIGS) are increasingly used options for mild-to-moderate open-angle glaucoma (OAG) care. While most MIGS devices are indicated for use in combination with cataract surgery only, with phacoemulsification playing a role in lowering IOP, newer technologies can also be used as standalone glaucoma surgery. Methods: This systematic literature review (SLR) aimed to assess the clinical, economic, and humanistic outcomes of MIGS and SLT for the treatment of OAG and was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Studies that assessed MIGS or SLT in at least one treatment arm versus any other glaucoma treatment in adults with mild-to-moderate OAG were included. Clinical, humanistic (health-related quality of life [HRQoL] and patient burden), and economic data were extracted, and the methodological quality of included studies was evaluated. Results: A total of 2720 articles were screened, and 81 publications were included. Fifty-eight reported clinical outcomes. The majority assessed iStent or iStent inject (n=41), followed by OMNI (n=9), gonioscopy-assisted transluminal trabeculotomy (GATT) or the Kahook Dual Blade (KDB) (n=7), Hydrus (n=6), SLT (n=5), Xen Gel Stent (n=2), PreserFlo (n=1), and iTrack (n=1). IOP reduction was observed across prospective studies, varying from -31% to -13.7% at month 6 and from -39% to -11.4% at year 1 versus baseline. Most adverse events were transient and non-serious. Limited humanistic and economic data were identified. Conclusion: Given their established efficacy and safety, there is a rationale for wider use of MIGS in mild-to-moderate OAG. Of the MIGS devices, iStent and OMNI have the largest clinical evidence base supporting their sustained effectiveness.

Erratum to: Cost-effectiveness of clostridial collagenase ointment on wound closure in patients with diabetic foot ulcers: economic analysis of results from a multicenter, randomized, open-label trial.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1186/s13047-015-0065-x.].

Cost-effectiveness of clostridial collagenase ointment on wound closure in patients with diabetic foot ulcers: economic analysis of results from a multicenter, randomized, open-label trial.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 10%-15% of people with diabetes develop at least one foot ulcer during their lifetime. Treatment of diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) represents a significant economic burden. Enzymatic debridement with clostridial collagenase ointment (CCO) can be used to remove necrotic tissue from wounds. This study examined the impact of CCO as an effective adjunct therapy to serial sharp debridement (SSD) and assessed the cost-effectiveness of CCO compared with standard DFU treatments over 1 year. METHODS: Adults 18 years or older with a diagnosis of type 1 or type 2 diabetes who had a neuropathic DFU were enrolled in a 12-week, randomized, open-label trial. Patients were randomly assigned to either treatment with CCO + SSD or to investigator-selected supportive care + SSD (Control). A 3-state Markov model with a 1-week cycle length was developed using wound-closure rates from the trial to estimate the number of healed-wound weeks and the expected DFU cost per patient. The 3 states included unhealed, healed, and death. Results were extrapolated to 1 year to estimate the number of healed-wound weeks per treatment and the average cost to achieve epithelialization. The perspective of the analysis was that of the payer, specifically, the third party payer. RESULTS: The study sample included 55 patients (28 in CCO group; 27 Control). The majority were men (74.5%) with a mean age of 57.9 years. Projected healing rates were greater for the CCO + SSD group compared to Control (89% vs. 80%, respectively). The expected number of epithelialized weeks accumulated over 1 year was 25% greater in the CCO + SSD group than for Control (35 vs. 28 weeks, respectively). Over a 1-year time horizon, the expected cost per DFU was greater in the Control group than the CCO group ($2,376 vs. $2,099, respectively). The estimated cost per ulcer-free week was 40% higher for Control ($85/closed-wound week) than for CCO + SSD ($61/closed-wound week). CONCLUSIONS: CCO + SSD therapy is a cost-effective method of debridement in the management of patients with DFUs, providing better outcomes at a lower cost. Further high quality trials are needed to confirm this finding. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT01408277.

Clinical and economic assessment of diabetic foot ulcer debridement with collagenase: results of a randomized controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Despite significant advances, the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) remains a major therapeutic challenge for clinicians, surgeons, and other health care professionals. There is an urgent need for new strategies with clinically effective interventions to treat DFUs to reduce the burden of care in an efficient and cost-effective way. OBJECTIVE: This randomized trial evaluated and compared the clinical effectiveness, tolerability, and costs of clostridial collagenase ointment (CCO) debridement to that of debridement using saline moistened gauze (SMG) and selective sharp debridement for the treatment of DFUs. METHODS: Randomized, controlled, parallel group, multicenter, open-label, 12-week study of 48 patients with neuropathic DFUs randomized to 4 weeks of treatment with either CCO or SMG after baseline surgical debridement. The primary end point was the condition of the ulcer bed at the end of treatment as measured using a standardized wound assessment tool. Secondary end points were the percentage of reduction in wound area and therapeutic response rates. Adverse events were monitored for the tolerability analysis. In addition, a comparative cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the perspective of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services as a payer. RESULTS: Both the CCO and SMG groups had significantly improved wound assessment scores after 4 weeks of treatment (CCO, -2.5, P = 0.007; SMG, -3.4, P = 0.006). Only CCO treatment resulted in a statistically significant decrease from baseline in the mean wound area at the end of treatment (P = 0.0164) and at the end of follow-up (P = 0.012). In addition, the CCO group exhibited a significantly better response rate at the end of follow-up compared with the SMG group (0.92 vs 0.75, P < 0.05). Reported adverse events were similar between the 2 treatment groups. None of the reported adverse events were considered to be related to treatment. The economic analysis indicated that the direct mean costs per responder in the physician office setting of care were $832 versus $1042 for the CCO group versus the SMG group, whereas the direct mean costs per responder in the hospital outpatient department setting were $1607 versus $1980. CONCLUSIONS: CCO treatment provides equivalent debridement of DFUs similar to SMG while fostering better progress toward healing as measured by decreasing wound area over time and improved response rates at the end of follow-up. In addition, CCO yields a more favorable cost-effectiveness ratio in both the physician office and hospital outpatient department settings of care. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01056198.