PURPOSE: To compare the cost and outcomes of bilateral cataract surgery with the foldable AMOArray multifocal intraocular lens (MIOL) versus the foldable monofocal intraocular lens from the health care payer perspective. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was used to evaluate treatment with the MIOL compared to monofocal lens, using data from clinical trials, literature, expert opinion, and a review of the German health care funding and reimbursement system. RESULTS: The average total direct medical cost per patient (per procedure) with the MIOL was DM 1,774 compared to DM 1,716 with the monofocal lens (1DM = US$0.558 in April 1998). The MIOL was more cost-effective than the monofocal lens in terms of cost per patient (spectacle-free). Cost per patient without overall limitation in vision-related function and cost per patient without limited night vision were similar for both patient groups. The incremental cost of the MIOL for a one-point increase was DM 52 in the self-rated score "quality of vision," DM 82 in "satisfaction with day vision," and DM 115 in "satisfaction with night vision." CONCLUSION: The small additional cost of the MIOL was outweighed by the increased satisfaction with vision experienced by MIOL patients.
PURPOSE: To compare the cost and outcomes of bilateral cataract surgery with the foldable AMOArray multifocal intraocular lens (MIOL) versus the foldable monofocal intraocular lens from the health care payer perspective. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was used to evaluate treatment with the MIOL compared to monofocal lens, using data from clinical trials, literature, expert opinion, and a review of the German health care funding and reimbursement system. RESULTS: The average total direct medical cost per patient (per procedure) with the MIOL was DM 1,774 compared to DM 1,716 with the monofocal lens (1DM = US$0.558 in April 1998). The MIOL was more cost-effective than the monofocal lens in terms of cost per patient (spectacle-free). Cost per patient without overall limitation in vision-related function and cost per patient without limited night vision were similar for both patient groups. The incremental cost of the MIOL for a one-point increase was DM 52 in the self-rated score "quality of vision," DM 82 in "satisfaction with day vision," and DM 115 in "satisfaction with night vision." CONCLUSION: The small additional cost of the MIOL was outweighed by the increased satisfaction with vision experienced by MIOL patients.
Authors: M G T Dolders; M D Nijkamp; R M M A Nuijts; B van den Borne; F Hendrikse; A Ament; W Groot Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 4.638