OMNI® surgical system versus iStent inject® with concomitant cataract surgery for the treatment of mild-to-moderate primary open-angle glaucoma in the United States: a cost utility analysis

IF 0.9 Q4 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Roberta Longo, Federico Ghinelli, Francesca Torelli, Gregory Mader, C. Masseria, Chad Patel, D. Franic, Jamie Dickerson, Dan Nguyen, L. Cantor
{"title":"OMNI® surgical system versus iStent inject® with concomitant cataract surgery for the treatment of mild-to-moderate primary open-angle glaucoma in the United States: a cost utility analysis","authors":"Roberta Longo, Federico Ghinelli, Francesca Torelli, Gregory Mader, C. Masseria, Chad Patel, D. Franic, Jamie Dickerson, Dan Nguyen, L. Cantor","doi":"10.1080/17469899.2023.2193685","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Background A Markov model was developed to investigate the cost utility of the OMNI® Surgical System (OMNI®) versus iStent inject® in patients with mild to moderate primary open angle glaucoma (POAG) during concomitant cataract surgery from a US Medicare perspective. Methods For patients aged 65 years and older with mild to moderate POAG and visually significant cataract, we simulated progression through four glaucoma states (mild, moderate, advanced, severe) and death, using 6-month cycles and a lifetime horizon. A systematic literature review identified effectiveness data to calculate health state transition probabilities. Direct costs included surgical procedures, physician fees, and intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering medications using Medicare 2022 rates. Utilities were sourced from published literature. Model structure and inputs were validated by a panel of ophthalmologists in the US and UK. Main outcome measures were incremental cost/QALY gained and net monetary benefit (NMB). Results OMNI® dominated iStent inject® with $552 lower costs and a gain of 0.02 quality-adjusted life-years. Model robustness was tested through deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, with OMNI® being dominant or cost-effective. NMB was $1,422 using a $50,000 willingness-to-pay threshold. Conclusion OMNI® was less costly and more effective than iStent inject® over a lifetime perspective for mild-to-moderate POAG Medicare patients in need of cataract extraction.","PeriodicalId":39989,"journal":{"name":"Expert Review of Ophthalmology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Review of Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17469899.2023.2193685","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

ABSTRACT Background A Markov model was developed to investigate the cost utility of the OMNI® Surgical System (OMNI®) versus iStent inject® in patients with mild to moderate primary open angle glaucoma (POAG) during concomitant cataract surgery from a US Medicare perspective. Methods For patients aged 65 years and older with mild to moderate POAG and visually significant cataract, we simulated progression through four glaucoma states (mild, moderate, advanced, severe) and death, using 6-month cycles and a lifetime horizon. A systematic literature review identified effectiveness data to calculate health state transition probabilities. Direct costs included surgical procedures, physician fees, and intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering medications using Medicare 2022 rates. Utilities were sourced from published literature. Model structure and inputs were validated by a panel of ophthalmologists in the US and UK. Main outcome measures were incremental cost/QALY gained and net monetary benefit (NMB). Results OMNI® dominated iStent inject® with $552 lower costs and a gain of 0.02 quality-adjusted life-years. Model robustness was tested through deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, with OMNI® being dominant or cost-effective. NMB was $1,422 using a $50,000 willingness-to-pay threshold. Conclusion OMNI® was less costly and more effective than iStent inject® over a lifetime perspective for mild-to-moderate POAG Medicare patients in need of cataract extraction.
在美国,OMNI®手术系统与iStent®注射合并白内障手术治疗轻至中度原发性开角型青光眼的成本效用分析
摘要背景从美国联邦医疗保险的角度,开发了一个马尔可夫模型来研究OMNI®手术系统(OMNI®)与iStent注射液®在轻度至中度原发性开角型青光眼(POAG)合并白内障手术患者中的成本效用。方法对于65岁及以上患有轻度至中度POAG和视力显著白内障的患者,我们使用6个月的周期和寿命范围模拟了四种青光眼状态(轻度、中度、晚期、重度)的进展和死亡。一项系统的文献综述确定了计算健康状态转变概率的有效性数据。直接费用包括外科手术、医生费用和使用2022年医疗保险费率的眼压(IOP)降低药物。公用设施来源于已发表的文献。美国和英国的一个眼科专家小组对模型结构和投入进行了验证。主要结果指标是增量成本/QALY收益和净货币收益(NMB)。结果OMNI®在iStent injection®中占据主导地位,成本降低了552美元,质量调整寿命增加了0.02年。通过确定性和概率敏感性分析测试了模型的稳健性,其中OMNI®占主导地位或具有成本效益。NMB为1422美元,使用50000美元的支付意愿阈值。结论OMNI®在需要白内障摘除的轻度至中度POAG联邦医疗保险患者的终身治疗中比iStent Injection®成本更低、效果更好。
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 Ophthalmology
Expert Review of Ophthalmology Health Professions-Optometry
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
39
期刊介绍: The worldwide problem of visual impairment is set to increase, as we are seeing increased longevity in developed countries. This will produce a crisis in vision care unless concerted action is taken. The substantial value that ophthalmic interventions confer to patients with eye diseases has led to intense research efforts in this area in recent years, with corresponding improvements in treatment, ophthalmic instrumentation and surgical techniques. As a result, the future for ophthalmology holds great promise as further exciting and innovative developments unfold.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信