Pupil expansion device use and operative outcomes with topical dilation vs intracameral epinephrine in resident-performed cataract surgery.

PURPOSE: To compare the use of topical dilation drops vs topical drops with the addition of intracameral epinephrine in resident-performed cataract surgery and the effects on pupil expansion device (PED) use, surgical costs, and surgical times. SETTING: Iowa City Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Iowa City, Iowa, USA. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. METHODS: Resident-performed primary cataract surgical cases using topical dilation drops only or drops with the addition of intracameral epinephrine were analyzed for PED use, surgical time, and costs in all patients and in patients with a history of tamsulosin use. RESULTS: In the topical group, PEDs were used in 31.1% of cases compared with 13.5% of cases in the intracameral group (P < .0001). History of tamsulosin use was noted in about one third of cases in both groups. For patients with a history of tamsulosin use, PED use decreased from 52.7% in the topical cases to 17.9% in the intracameral group (P < .0001). Surgical times were on average 7.1 minutes slower with PED use than without PED use. There was a medication savings of $50.44 USD per case in the intracameral group compared with the topical group. Factoring in the $100 to $130 USD per PED used, total surgical costs were $19 267 USD less in the intracameral group over 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: Intracameral epinephrine with lidocaine decreases the need for PED use during cataract surgery, lowers intraoperative costs, and improves efficiency compared with topical dilation drops alone.

Budget impact model of Mydrane®, a new intracameral injectable used for intra-operative mydriasis, from a UK hospital perspective.

BACKGROUND: During cataract surgery, maintaining an adequate degree of mydriasis throughout the entire operation is critical to allow for visualisation of the capsulorhexis and the crystalline lens. Good anaesthesia is also essential for safe intraocular surgery. Mydrane® is a new injectable intracameral solution containing two mydriatics (tropicamide 0.02% and phenylephrine 0.31%) and one anaesthetic (lidocaine 1%) that was developed as an alternative to the conventional topical pre-operative mydriatics used in cataract surgery. This study aimed to estimate the budget impact across a one year time frame using Mydrane® instead of topical dilating eye drops, for a UK hospital performing 3,000 cataract operations a year. METHODS: A budget impact model (BIM) was developed to compare the economic outcomes associated with the use of Mydrane® versus topical drops (tropicamide 0.5% and phenylephrine 10%) in patients undergoing cataract surgery in a UK hospital. The outcomes of interest included costs and resource use (e.g. clinician time, mydriasis failures, operating room time, number of patients per vial of therapy etc.) associated with management of mydriasis in patients undergoing cataract surgery. All model inputs considered the UK hospital perspective without social or geographical variables. Deterministic sensitivity analyses were also performed to assess the model uncertainty. RESULTS: Introduction of Mydrane® is associated with a cost saving of £6,251 over 3,000 cataract surgeries in one year. The acquisition costs of the Mydrane® (£18,000 by year vs. £3,330 for eye drops) were balanced by substantial reductions in mainly nurses' costs and time, plus a smaller contribution from savings in surgeons' costs (£20,511) and lower costs associated with auxiliary dilation (£410 due to avoidance of additional dilation methods). Results of the sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the model to the variation of inputs. Except for the duration of one session of eye drop instillation and the cost of Mydrane®, Mydrane® achieved an incremental cost gain compared to tropicamide/phenylephrine eye drops. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a higher acquisition cost of Mydrane®, the budget impact of Mydrane® on hospital budgets is neutral. Mydrane® offers a promising alternative to traditional regimes using eye drops, allowing for a better patient flow and optimisation of the surgery schedule with neutral budget impact.

Mydriasert pupillary dilation for cataract surgery: an economic and clinical study.

BACKGROUND: Mydriasert is an insoluble ophthalmic insert indicated for mydriasis prior to cataract surgery, which gradually releases the active ingredients: tropicamide (0.25 mg) and phenylephrine (5.38 mg). This study aimed to evaluate the cost of Mydriasert compared with conventional mydriatic eye drops to induce pupil dilation prior to cataract surgery using a budget impact model. METHODS: A cohort-based, decision tree, budget impact model was developed to estimate the drug, consumable and staff costs for achieving mydriasis with Mydriasert compared to mydriatic eye drops (tropicamide [1%] plus phenylephrine [10%]). Insights from structured interviews with clinicians (n = 5) experienced in using both Mydriasert and mydriatic eye drops and results from the current clinical study of patients undergoing cataract surgery (n = 144) at a Greater London district general hospital were used to obtain key input parameters for the model, and to validate the model approach. RESULTS: The base case analysis in a cohort of 1763 patients undergoing cataract surgery showed that when Mydriasert substituted mydriatic eye drops, annual total costs decreased by 18% and annual total nurse time decreased from 235.1 hours to 44.1 hours over one year (2012-2013). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that despite its higher unit cost than mydriatic eye drops, Mydriasert resulted in overall savings in health-care costs, mainly associated with reduced nursing time. The economic model developed could assist National Health Service managers and local payers to estimate the budget impact of the introduction of Mydriasert into different clinical settings.

Cost-effectiveness of cycloplegic agents: results of a randomized controlled trial in nigerian children.

PURPOSE: To compare the cost and effectiveness of three cycloplegic agents among Nigerian children. METHODS: Two hundred thirty-three children aged 4 to 15 years attending outpatient eye clinics in Nigeria were randomized to (1) 1% cyclopentolate, (2) 1% cyclopentolate and 0.5% tropicamide, or (3) 1% atropine drops in each eye (instilled at home over 3 days). Ten children were lost to follow-up, nine from the atropine group. An optometrist measured the residual accommodation (primary outcome), dilated pupil size, pupil response to light, and self-reported side effects (secondary outcomes). Caregivers were interviewed about costs incurred due to cycloplegia (primary outcome). The incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated as the difference in cost divided by the difference in effectiveness comparing two agents. The 95% confidence intervals (CI) for ICERs were estimated through bootstrapping. RESULTS: The atropine group had significantly lower mean residual accommodation (0.04 +/- 0.01 D [SE]), than the combined regimen (0.36 +/- 0.05 D) and cyclopentolate (0.63 +/- 0.06 D) groups (P < 0.001). Atropine and the combined regimen produced better results for negative response to light and dilated pupil size than cyclopentolate. Atropine was more expensive, but also more effective, than the other agents. The ICER comparing atropine to the combined regimen was 1.81 (95% CI = -6.31-15.35) and compared to cyclopentolate was 0.59 (95% CI = -3.47-5.47). The combined regimen was both more effective and less expensive than cyclopentolate alone. CONCLUSIONS: A combination of cyclopentolate and tropicamide should become the recommended agent for routine cycloplegic refraction in African children. The combined regimen was more effective than cyclopentolate, but not more expensive, and was preferable to atropine, since it incurred fewer losses to follow-up.