Search

Purpose: Diabetic macular oedema (DMO), a complication of diabetes, causes vision loss and blindness. Corticosteroids are usually used as a second-line treatment. The aim of this study was to analyse the cost-effectiveness of dexamethasone implants compared to cheaper and more frequently applied triamcinolone injections., Methods: Markov-modelling, which incorporated both eyes, was used for economic evaluation. The model consisted of five health states based on visual acuity, illustrating the progression of DMO. A cycle length of five months was chosen for dexamethasone and four months for triamcinolone. Time horizons of two and five years were applied. Transition probabilities and health state utilities were sourced from previous studies. The perspective used in this analysis was the hospital perspective. The health care costs were acquired from Kuopio University Hospital in Finland., Results: In this cost-effectiveness analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ICER with 3% discount rate was €56 591/QALY for a two-year follow-up and -€1 110 942/QALY for a five-year follow-up. In order to consider dexamethasone as cost-effective over a 2-year time horizon, the WTP needs to be around €55 000/QALY. Over the five-year follow-up, triamcinolone is clearly a dominant treatment. Sensitivity analyses support the cost-effectiveness of dexamethasone over a 2-year time horizon., Conclusions: Since the sensitivity analyses support the results, dexamethasone would be a cost-effective treatment during the first two years with WTP threshold around €55 000/QALY, and triamcinolone would be a convenient treatment after that. This recommendation is in line with the guidelines of EURETINA., (© 2021 The Authors. Acta Ophthalmologica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica Foundation.)

Purpose: Wet age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is the leading cause of blindness worldwide, which can be treated with regular intraocular anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) injections. In this study, we wanted to evaluate whether less frequent injections of aflibercept would make it more cost-effective when compared with ranibizumab and low priced bevacizumab., Methods: We used a two-eye model to simulate the progression and the treatment of the disease. We selected an 8-year period, 3-month cycles and five health states based on the visual acuity of the better-seeing eye. The transition probabilities and utilities attached to the health states were gathered from previous studies. We conducted the analysis from the hospital perspective and we used the health care costs obtained from Kuopio University Hospital. The costs of intraocular adverse events were taken into account., Results: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) with 3% discount rate (€/QALY) for aflibercept compared with monthly bevacizumab was 1 801 228 and when compared with ranibizumab given as needed, the ICER was minus 3 716 943. The sensitivity analysis showed that a change of 20% of the estimated model parameters or a longer follow-up period did not influence these conclusions., Conclusion: A two-eye Markov transition model was developed to analyse the cost-effectiveness of wet AMD treatment, as quality of life years (QALYs) are largely based on the visual acuity of the better-seeing eye. Monthly injected bevacizumab was the most cost-effective treatment and monthly ranibizumab the least effective., (© 2016 Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica Foundation. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)