RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Oral administration of zeaxanthin (Zx) 20 mg daily in patients with unilateral neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) treated with triple therapy (photodynamic therapy/intravitreal bevacizumab/intravitreal dexamethasone) reduced fellow-eye 2-year nAMD incidence from 23 to 6% (p = 0.02) in a prior clinical trial. We questioned the long-term benefit and thus analyzed case-control 5-year patient data of trial participants and additional participants with 5-year follow-up, also performing cost-utility and cost-benefit analyses. METHODS: Consecutive, unilateral nAMD patient outcomes for those taking 20 mg Zx supplementation orally for ≥ 5 years were compared with the Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials (CATT) 5-year historical controls for fellow-eye nAMD conversion. Eleven-year mean life expectancy, cost-utility and cost-benefit models were undertaken employing a 3% discount rate and 2020 US real dollars. RESULTS: Among 227 consecutive patients with nAMD/Zx-supplementation, 202 (90%) had 5-year follow-up. The fellow-eye nAMD 5-year conversion incidence using a Kaplan-Meier cumulative event estimate was 22% (49/227), versus 48% (167/348) with CATT control data (p < 0.0001). An 11-year cost-utility model with estimates for years 6-11 demonstrated a 0.42 (7.7%) QALY (quality-adjusted life-year) gain, including 3 months of life saved per patient due to decreased nAMD fellow-eye conversion. This yielded a direct ophthalmic medical cost perspective, incremental cost-utility ratio (CUR) of -$576/QALY and a societal cost perspective CUR of -$125,071/QALY. Zx supplementation for all 2020 US unilateral nAMD cases would have theoretically saved society, primarily patients, $6.0 billion over 11 years, a 1531% return on investment (ROI), or 31.3% annual ROI, on Zx costs. CONCLUSIONS: Oral zeaxanthin supplementation for unilateral nAMD patients appears to decrease fellow-eye long-term incidence and is cost-effective and financially rewarding. It is dominant vs. no supplementation in patients presenting with unilateral nAMD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01527435.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Reports of triple combination therapy for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD) suggest a benefit, as do reports for zeaxanthin. An interventional comparative study was thus undertaken to evaluate the efficacy of triple combination therapy with and without zeaxanthin, as well as the economic viability of the therapies. METHODS: The cases of 543 consecutive eyes of 424 patients with subfoveal choroidal neovascularization (CNV) secondary to AMD were reviewed. All eyes were treated with triple combination therapy (triple therapy) consisting of: (1) reduced-fluence photodynamic therapy with verteporfin, (2) intravitreal bevacizumab and (3) intravitreal dexamethasone. Therapy was repeated as necessary. One cohort of patients was also given supplementation with 20 mg of oral zeaxanthin (Zx) daily. RESULTS: The triple therapy group without Zx received a mean of 2.8 treatment cycles and 87 % of patients had stable or improved vision at 24 months. In the triple therapy group with Zx, the mean number of treatment cycles was 2.1, with 83 % of patients having stable or improved vision at 24 months. At 24 months, CNV developed in 12.5 % of fellow eyes treated with triple therapy alone; CNV developed in 6.25 % of eyes treated with triple therapy with Zx (p = 0.03). An average cost-utility analysis revealed that triple therapy was cost-effective with a cost-utility ratio of $26,574/QALY, while triple therapy with Zx was more cost-effective with an average cost-utility ratio of $19,962/QALY. The incremental cost-utility analysis assessing the addition of Zx to triple therapy disclosed Zx supplementation was very cost-effective at $5302/QALY. When it was assumed that triple therapy with Zx reduced fellow eye CNV development by 30.3 %, the incremental cost-utility dropped to (-$6332/QALY), indicating that adding Zx to triple therapy yielded greater patient value, and was also less expensive than using triple therapy alone. CONCLUSIONS: Triple therapy is comparatively effective and cost-effective. Considerably less treatment is needed than reported in monotherapy studies. The addition of oral Zx appears to further reduce the treatment cycles required, and possibly reduce the risk of CNV development in the fellow eye.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: To compare silicone oil removal with passive drainage alone versus passive drainage combined with air-fluid exchange in regard to floaters. METHODS: Twenty-five consecutive patients who were seen at the Retina Center in St. Louis, Missouri between May 1996 and May 1999 and underwent silicone oil removal were requested to complete a mailed questionnaire regarding the presence of floaters. The medical records of the 21 patients (22 eyes) who returned the questionnaire were also reviewed retrospectively for clinical evidence of floaters if they were identified in the postoperative fundus examination. RESULTS: Fifteen patients (16 eyes) (73%) reported floaters after silicone oil removal. Three (14%) of these eyes also had clinical evidence of floaters on postoperative fundus examination. Univariate analyses of primary eye disease other than proliferative diabetic retinopathy, duration of silicone oil retention in the eye, and final visual acuity were not associated with the patients' reported incidence of floaters. No patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy reported floaters after silicone oil removal. Silicone oil removal procedure (i.e., removal with passive drainage alone or passive drainage combined with air-fluid exchange) did not influence the reported occurrence of floaters (P = 0.65). CONCLUSION: Silicone oil removal is often associated with floaters from residual oil droplets. There is no difference in the incidence of floaters seen after silicone oil removal with passive drainage alone versus passive drainage combined with air-fluid exchange.
