Clinical applications of cost analysis of diabetic macular edema treatments

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

25 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To apply cost-benefit analyses in specific circumstances in which the results of multiple modalities of treating diabetic macular edema (DME) are similar, as a basis for considering economic ramifications in clinically relevant applications. Design: A model of resource use, outcomes, and cost-effectiveness and utility. Participants: There were no participants. Methods: Results from published clinical trials (index studies) of laser, intravitreal corticosteroids, intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents, and vitrectomy trials were used to ascertain visual benefit and clinical protocols of patients with DME. Calculations followed from the costs of 1 year of treatment for each modality and the visual benefits as ascertained. Main Outcome Measures: Visual acuity (VA) saved, cost of therapy, cost per line saved, cost per line-year saved, and costs per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) saved. Results: Four specific situations were observed or analyzed: (1) Treatment results for DME causing VA loss <20/200 show at least as much visual benefit for intravitreal triamcinolone (IVTA) versus laser; (2) a subgroup analysis of pseudophakic DME eyes shows equivalent visual results with anti-VEGF treatment versus laser combined with IVTA; (3) eyes with VA of <20/32 have been studied only by laser; and (4) less frequent use of aflibercept yields equivalent visual results as more frequent treatment. When the results are equivalent, opting for the less-expensive treatment option could yield cost savings of 40% to 88%. Conclusions: Cost-effectiveness analyses can be clinically relevant and may be considered when formulating and applying treatment strategies for some subsets of patients with DME. Financial Disclosure(s): The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)2558-2562
Number of pages5
JournalOphthalmology
Volume119
Issue number12
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2012

Fingerprint

Macular Edema
Costs and Cost Analysis
Lasers
Visual Acuity
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Triamcinolone
Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A
Therapeutics
Quality-Adjusted Life Years
Cost Savings
Vitrectomy
Disclosure
Clinical Protocols
Adrenal Cortex Hormones
Economics
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Clinical Trials

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ophthalmology

Cite this

Clinical applications of cost analysis of diabetic macular edema treatments. / Smiddy, William E.

In: Ophthalmology, Vol. 119, No. 12, 01.12.2012, p. 2558-2562.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{5be557eb69004f73af13694b3ec1f3c8,
title = "Clinical applications of cost analysis of diabetic macular edema treatments",
abstract = "Objective: To apply cost-benefit analyses in specific circumstances in which the results of multiple modalities of treating diabetic macular edema (DME) are similar, as a basis for considering economic ramifications in clinically relevant applications. Design: A model of resource use, outcomes, and cost-effectiveness and utility. Participants: There were no participants. Methods: Results from published clinical trials (index studies) of laser, intravitreal corticosteroids, intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents, and vitrectomy trials were used to ascertain visual benefit and clinical protocols of patients with DME. Calculations followed from the costs of 1 year of treatment for each modality and the visual benefits as ascertained. Main Outcome Measures: Visual acuity (VA) saved, cost of therapy, cost per line saved, cost per line-year saved, and costs per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) saved. Results: Four specific situations were observed or analyzed: (1) Treatment results for DME causing VA loss <20/200 show at least as much visual benefit for intravitreal triamcinolone (IVTA) versus laser; (2) a subgroup analysis of pseudophakic DME eyes shows equivalent visual results with anti-VEGF treatment versus laser combined with IVTA; (3) eyes with VA of <20/32 have been studied only by laser; and (4) less frequent use of aflibercept yields equivalent visual results as more frequent treatment. When the results are equivalent, opting for the less-expensive treatment option could yield cost savings of 40{\%} to 88{\%}. Conclusions: Cost-effectiveness analyses can be clinically relevant and may be considered when formulating and applying treatment strategies for some subsets of patients with DME. Financial Disclosure(s): The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.",
author = "Smiddy, {William E}",
year = "2012",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.09.015",
language = "English",
volume = "119",
pages = "2558--2562",
journal = "Ophthalmology",
issn = "0161-6420",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Clinical applications of cost analysis of diabetic macular edema treatments

AU - Smiddy, William E

PY - 2012/12/1

Y1 - 2012/12/1

N2 - Objective: To apply cost-benefit analyses in specific circumstances in which the results of multiple modalities of treating diabetic macular edema (DME) are similar, as a basis for considering economic ramifications in clinically relevant applications. Design: A model of resource use, outcomes, and cost-effectiveness and utility. Participants: There were no participants. Methods: Results from published clinical trials (index studies) of laser, intravitreal corticosteroids, intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents, and vitrectomy trials were used to ascertain visual benefit and clinical protocols of patients with DME. Calculations followed from the costs of 1 year of treatment for each modality and the visual benefits as ascertained. Main Outcome Measures: Visual acuity (VA) saved, cost of therapy, cost per line saved, cost per line-year saved, and costs per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) saved. Results: Four specific situations were observed or analyzed: (1) Treatment results for DME causing VA loss <20/200 show at least as much visual benefit for intravitreal triamcinolone (IVTA) versus laser; (2) a subgroup analysis of pseudophakic DME eyes shows equivalent visual results with anti-VEGF treatment versus laser combined with IVTA; (3) eyes with VA of <20/32 have been studied only by laser; and (4) less frequent use of aflibercept yields equivalent visual results as more frequent treatment. When the results are equivalent, opting for the less-expensive treatment option could yield cost savings of 40% to 88%. Conclusions: Cost-effectiveness analyses can be clinically relevant and may be considered when formulating and applying treatment strategies for some subsets of patients with DME. Financial Disclosure(s): The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.

AB - Objective: To apply cost-benefit analyses in specific circumstances in which the results of multiple modalities of treating diabetic macular edema (DME) are similar, as a basis for considering economic ramifications in clinically relevant applications. Design: A model of resource use, outcomes, and cost-effectiveness and utility. Participants: There were no participants. Methods: Results from published clinical trials (index studies) of laser, intravitreal corticosteroids, intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents, and vitrectomy trials were used to ascertain visual benefit and clinical protocols of patients with DME. Calculations followed from the costs of 1 year of treatment for each modality and the visual benefits as ascertained. Main Outcome Measures: Visual acuity (VA) saved, cost of therapy, cost per line saved, cost per line-year saved, and costs per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) saved. Results: Four specific situations were observed or analyzed: (1) Treatment results for DME causing VA loss <20/200 show at least as much visual benefit for intravitreal triamcinolone (IVTA) versus laser; (2) a subgroup analysis of pseudophakic DME eyes shows equivalent visual results with anti-VEGF treatment versus laser combined with IVTA; (3) eyes with VA of <20/32 have been studied only by laser; and (4) less frequent use of aflibercept yields equivalent visual results as more frequent treatment. When the results are equivalent, opting for the less-expensive treatment option could yield cost savings of 40% to 88%. Conclusions: Cost-effectiveness analyses can be clinically relevant and may be considered when formulating and applying treatment strategies for some subsets of patients with DME. Financial Disclosure(s): The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84870706227&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84870706227&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.09.015

DO - 10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.09.015

M3 - Article

C2 - 23062655

AN - SCOPUS:84870706227

VL - 119

SP - 2558

EP - 2562

JO - Ophthalmology

JF - Ophthalmology

SN - 0161-6420

IS - 12

ER -