TearCare system versus cyclosporine ophthalmic emulsion for the treatment of moderate-to-severe meibomian gland disease associated dry eye disease in the United States: a cost-utility analysis.

IF 1.8 4区医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES

Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research Pub Date : 2025-07-24 DOI:10.1080/14737167.2025.2537850

Nathan Lighthizer, Bonnie-Kim Schwertz, Thomas Chester, Roberta Longo, Phoenix Riley, Lorie Mody, Chad Patel

{"title":"TearCare system versus cyclosporine ophthalmic emulsion for the treatment of moderate-to-severe meibomian gland disease associated dry eye disease in the United States: a cost-utility analysis.","authors":"Nathan Lighthizer, Bonnie-Kim Schwertz, Thomas Chester, Roberta Longo, Phoenix Riley, Lorie Mody, Chad Patel","doi":"10.1080/14737167.2025.2537850","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Meibomian gland disease (MGD) is a leading cause of dry eye disease (DED), yet current treatments like over-the-counter and prescription drops provide only symptomatic relief. TearCare is an FDA-cleared, in-office procedure that directly targets MGD, but its cost-effectiveness has not been previously evaluated.Research design and methods: We conducted a cost-utility analysis (CUA) comparing TearCare with topical cyclosporine 0.05% (CsA) for moderate-to-severe MGD-related DED. A U.S. payer perspective and 1-year time horizon were used. A Markov model with 3-month cycles evaluated transitions across four Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI)-defined health states. Transition probabilities and persistence rates were derived from the SAHARA trial and literature.Results: TearCare provided better outcomes (e.g. more patients improving to mild/no symptoms) and was less costly ($4,916 vs $5,819), with a quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gain of 0.014. This corresponds to approximately 5.1 additional days in perfect health over 1 year. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) showed TearCare to be dominant (more effective and less costly).Conclusions: TearCare is a cost-effective treatment for MGD-related DED, offering both clinical benefits and cost savings over CsA.","PeriodicalId":12244,"journal":{"name":"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2025.2537850","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Meibomian gland disease (MGD) is a leading cause of dry eye disease (DED), yet current treatments like over-the-counter and prescription drops provide only symptomatic relief. TearCare is an FDA-cleared, in-office procedure that directly targets MGD, but its cost-effectiveness has not been previously evaluated.

Research design and methods: We conducted a cost-utility analysis (CUA) comparing TearCare with topical cyclosporine 0.05% (CsA) for moderate-to-severe MGD-related DED. A U.S. payer perspective and 1-year time horizon were used. A Markov model with 3-month cycles evaluated transitions across four Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI)-defined health states. Transition probabilities and persistence rates were derived from the SAHARA trial and literature.

Results: TearCare provided better outcomes (e.g. more patients improving to mild/no symptoms) and was less costly ($4,916 vs $5,819), with a quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gain of 0.014. This corresponds to approximately 5.1 additional days in perfect health over 1 year. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) showed TearCare to be dominant (more effective and less costly).

Conclusions: TearCare is a cost-effective treatment for MGD-related DED, offering both clinical benefits and cost savings over CsA.

查看原文本刊更多论文

在美国，TearCare系统与环孢素眼用乳剂治疗中重度睑板腺病相关干眼病：成本效用分析

背景：睑板腺疾病（MGD）是干眼病（DED）的主要原因，但目前的治疗方法，如非处方和处方滴眼液只能缓解症状。TearCare是fda批准的一种直接针对MGD的手术，但其成本效益此前尚未得到评估。研究设计和方法：我们进行了成本效用分析（CUA），比较了TearCare和0.05%环孢素（CsA）对中重度mgd相关DED的治疗效果。采用美国付款人视角和1年的时间范围。一个以3个月为周期的马尔可夫模型评估了四种眼表疾病指数（OSDI）定义的健康状态的转变。转移概率和持续率来源于撒哈拉试验和文献。结果：TearCare提供了更好的结果（例如，更多的患者改善到轻度/无症状），并且成本更低（4,916美元对5,819美元），质量调整生命年（QALY）增加0.014。这相当于在一年中多出大约5.1天的完全健康。增量成本-效果比（ICER）显示TearCare占主导地位（更有效，成本更低）。结论：TearCare是一种经济有效的治疗mgd相关DED的方法，与CsA相比，它提供了临床益处和成本节约。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY

CiteScore

4.00

自引率

4.30%

发文量

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research (ISSN 1473-7167) provides expert reviews on cost-benefit and pharmacoeconomic issues relating to the clinical use of drugs and therapeutic approaches. Coverage includes pharmacoeconomics and quality-of-life research, therapeutic outcomes, evidence-based medicine and cost-benefit research. All articles are subject to rigorous peer-review. The journal adopts the unique Expert Review article format, offering a complete overview of current thinking in a key technology area, research or clinical practice, augmented by the following sections: Expert Opinion – a personal view of the data presented in the article, a discussion on the developments that are likely to be important in the future, and the avenues of research likely to become exciting as further studies yield more detailed results Article Highlights – an executive summary of the author’s most critical points.