A Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses for Open Angle Glaucoma Management.

PURPOSE: Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) quantify and compare both costs and measures of efficacy for different interventions. As the costs of glaucoma management to patients, payers, and physicians are increasing, we seek to investigate the role of CEAs in the field of glaucoma and how such studies impact clinical management. METHODS: We adhered to the "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses" guidelines for our systematic review structure. Eligible studies included any full-text articles that investigated cost-effectiveness or cost-utility as it relates to the field of open angle glaucoma management in the United States. Risk of bias assessment was conducted using the validated Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Economic Evaluations. RESULTS: Eighteen studies were included in the review. Dates of publication ranged from 1983 to 2021. Most of the studies were published in the 2000s and performed CEAs in the domains of treatment/therapy, screening, and adherence for patients with primary angle open glaucoma. Of the 18 articles included, 14 focused on treatment, 2 on screening, and 2 on adherence. Most of these studies focused on the cost-effectiveness of different topical medical therapies, whereas only a few studies explored laser procedures, surgical interventions, or minimally invasive procedures. Economic models using decision analysis incorporating state-transition Markov cycles or Montecarlo simulations were widely used, however, the methodology among studies was variable, with a wide spectrum of inputs, measures of outcomes, and time horizons used. CONCLUSION: Overall, we found that cost-effectiveness research in glaucoma in the United States remains relatively unstructured, resulting in unclear and conflicting implications for clinical management.

Cost-effectiveness of Prophylactic Laser Peripheral Iridotomy in Primary Angle-Closure Suspects.

PURPOSE: To investigate the cost-effectiveness (CE) of prophylactic laser peripheral iridotomy (LPI) in primary angle-closure (PAC) suspects (PACSs). DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis utilizing Markov models. SUBJECTS: Patients with narrow angles (PACSs). METHODS: Progression from PACSs through 4 states (PAC, PAC glaucoma, blindness, and death) was simulated using Markov cycles. The cohort entered at 50 years and received either LPI or no treatment. Transition probabilities were calculated from published models, and risk reduction of LPI was calculated from the Zhongshan Angle Closure Prevention trial. We estimated costs of Medicare rates, and previously published utility values were used to calculate quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Incremental CE ratios (ICER) were evaluated at $50 000. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSAs) addressed uncertainty. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Total cost, QALY, and ICER. RESULTS: Over 2 years, the ICER for the LPI cohort was > $50 000. At 6 years, the LPI cohort was less expensive with more accrued QALY. In PSA, the LPI arm was cost-effective in 24.65% of iterations over 2 years and 92.69% over 6 years. The most sensitive parameters were probability of progressing to PAC and cost and number of annual office visits. CONCLUSIONS: By 6 years, prophylactic LPI was cost-effective. The rate of progressing to PAC and differing practice patterns most impacted CE. With uncertainty of management of narrow angles, cost may be a decision management tool for providers. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): The authors have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.

Cost of Ranibizumab Port Delivery System vs Intravitreal Injections for Patients With Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration.

Importance: The study team investigated costs associated with the ranibizumab port delivery system (PDS) for neovascular age-related macular (nAMD), an alternative to conventional intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) injections. Objective: To investigate costs of intravitreal anti-VEGF injections vs ranibizumab PDS for patients with neovascular AMD (nAMD). Design, Setting, and Participants: This cost analysis used trial data and Medicare reimbursement rates and included patients with nAMD who were receiving ranibizumab, aflibercept, bevacizumab injections, or ranibizumab PDS. Main Outcomes and Measures: The number of intravitreal ranibizumab, aflibercept, and bevacizumab injections to break even with costs of ranibizumab PDS. Total direct medical costs over 1 year and 5 years for the ranibizumab PDS arm with refills at fixed 6-month intervals compared with monthly or bimonthly injections were calculated using Medicare rates. Scenario and sensitivity analyses accounted for uncertainty and variation. Results: The mean (SD) number of ranibizumab, aflibercept, and bevacizumab injections to break even with the cost of ranibizumab PDS with 1 refill was 10.8 (1.3), 9.3 (1.1), and 34.5 (4.2), respectively. Ranibizumab PDS with fixed 6-month refills over 1 year cost $21 016 ($2102). Comparatively, monthly intravitreal ranibizumab cost $1943 (95% CI, -$3047 to $6932; P = .34) more, aflibercept cost $5702 (95% CI, $253-$11 151; P = .04) more, and bevacizumab cost $16 732 (95% CI, -$20 170 to -$13 294, P < .001) less. For bimonthly injections, aflibercept cost $7658 (95% CI, -$11 649.52 to -$3665.61; P = .006) less. Over 5 years, monthly intravitreal ranibizumab projected to cost $25 581 (95% CI, $2275-$48 887; P = .04) more, aflibercept cost $44 374 (95% CI, $18 623-$70 125; P = .008) more, and bevacizumab cost $67 793 (95% CI, -$82 501 to -$53 085; P < .001) less than PDS with fixed refills (mean [SD] cost, $89 218 [$8921]). For bimonthly injections, aflibercept cost $22 422 (95% CI, -$40 287 to -$45,56; P = .03) less. In scenario analyses, ranibizumab PDS with refills as needed offered cost savings compared with real-world intravitreal ranibizumab or aflibercept use at 5 years but not at 1 year. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cost analysis, ranibizumab PDS with 1 refill cost more than intravitreal ranibizumab or aflibercept injections if less than or equal to approximately 11 or 10 injections, respectively, are required within the first year. Long term, if less than 4.4 and 3.8 injections are needed per refill, intravitreal ranibizumab and aflibercept is lower cost. Ranibizumab PDS costs more than intravitreal bevacizumab injections throughout scenarios.

Maternal Cannabis Use in the Perinatal Period: Data From the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System Marijuana Supplement, 2016-2018.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence of perinatal cannabis use (ie, before and/or during pregnancy); document the frequency, modes, and motivations for use; and identify predictors of perinatal cannabis use. METHODS: Six states in the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System, a state-specific, population-based surveillance system, administered a supplemental questionnaire on perinatal cannabis use in 2016-2018. Women with live births were surveyed 2-6 months postpartum about behaviors ≤ 3 months preconception and during pregnancy. Demographic, psychosocial, and behavioral characteristics were examined in relation to perinatal cannabis use using multinomial regression models. Those who: (1) never used cannabis, (2) only used in preconception period, and (3) used in both preconception and prenatal periods were compared. RESULTS: Among 6428 respondents, 379 (5.8%) used cannabis pre-conceptionally only and 466 (4.4%) used in both the preconception and prenatal periods. Among those using prenatally, most reported smoking as their single mode (87.1%), with the two most common reasons being stress (83.8%) and nausea/vomiting (79.2%). Marital status, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, parity, and cigarette and alcohol use were significantly associated with perinatal cannabis use. Single (vs partnered) women were more likely to use cannabis prenatally (odds ratio = 2.4, 95% confidence interval: 1.5, 3.9) and non-Hispanic Black (vs White) women were less likely to use prenatally (odds ratio = 0.4, 95% confidence interval: 0.2, 0.8). CONCLUSIONS: Using a population-based sample of US births in six states, several demographic, psychosocial, and behavioral characteristics were identified in relation to perinatal cannabis use. These data are valuable for counseling in prenatal care and investigations of health effects.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Minimally Invasive Trabecular Meshwork Stents with Phacoemulsification.

PURPOSE: To investigate the costs and effects of implanting trabecular meshwork bypass stents during cataract surgery from a societal perspective in the United States. DESIGN: Cost-utility analysis using Markov models and efficacy/safety data from published pivotal or randomized control trials (RCTs) of devices investigated. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged 65 years and older with mild to moderate primary open-angle glaucoma with or without visually significant cataract. METHODS: With the use of Markov models, glaucoma progression through 4 glaucoma states (mild, moderate, advanced, severe/blind) and death were simulated over 35 years. The cohort with cataract entered the model and received cataract surgery with or without device implantation. We included a medication management only reference group to calculate total costs and outcomes for those without cataract. Intraocular pressure (IOP) reductions from RCTs were converted to glaucoma state transition probabilities using visual field (VF) mean deviation (MD) decline rates from the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial. Progressive thinning of the retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) on OCT imaging related to IOP control warranted further intervention, including adding medication, selective laser trabeculoplasty (SLT), or incisional glaucoma surgery. We estimated whole costs at Medicare rates and obtained utility values for glaucoma states from previous studies. Incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained were evaluated at a QALY threshold of $50 000. One-way deterministic sensitivity analysis, scenario analyses, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses addressed parameter uncertainty and demonstrated model robustness. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Total costs, QALY, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: Over 35 years in the base case, the Hydrus (Ivantis, Inc.) implanted with cataract surgery arm cost $48 026.13 and gained 12.26 QALYs. The iStent inject (Glaukos Corp.) implanted with cataract surgery arm cost $49 599.86 and gained 12.21 QALYs. Cataract surgery alone cost $54 409.25 and gained 12.04 QALYs. Initial nonsurgical management cost $57 931.22 and gained 11.74 QALY. The device arms dominated or were cost-effective compared with cataract surgery alone within 5 years and throughout sensitivity analyses. The iStent inject arm was cost-effective in 94.19% of iterations in probabilistic sensitivity analyses, whereas the Hydrus arm was cost-effective in 94.69% of iterations. CONCLUSIONS: Implanting the Hydrus Microstent or iStent inject during cataract surgery is cost-effective at a conservative QALY threshold.