OBJECTIVE: To assess the comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness (cost-utility) of a 0.05% emulsion of topical cyclosporine (Restasis; Allergan Inc, Irvine, California) for the treatment of moderate to severe dry eye syndrome that is unresponsive to conventional therapy. METHODS: Data from 2 multicenter, randomized, clinical trials and Food and Drug Administration files for topical cyclosporine, 0.05%, emulsion were used in Center for Value-Based Medicine analyses. Analyses included value-based medicine as a comparative effectiveness analysis and average cost-utility analysis using societal and third-party insurer cost perspectives. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcome measures of comparative effectiveness were quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain and percentage of improvement in quality of life, and for cost-effectiveness were cost-utility ratio (CUR) using dollars per QALY. RESULTS:Topical cyclosporine, 0.05%, confers a value gain (comparative effectiveness) of 0.0319 QALY per year compared with topical lubricant therapy, a 4.3% improvement in quality of life for the average patient with moderate to severe dry eye syndrome that is unresponsive to conventional lubricant therapy. The societal perspective incremental CUR for cyclosporine over vehicle therapy is $34,953 per QALY and the societal perspective average CUR is $11,199 per QALY. The third-party-insurer incremental CUR is $37,179 per QALY, while the third-party-insurer perspective average CUR is $34,343 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS:Topical cyclosporine emulsion, 0.05%, confers considerable patient value and is a cost-effective therapy for moderate to severe dry eye syndrome that is unresponsive to conventional therapy.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To assess the comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness (cost-utility) of a 0.05% emulsion of topical cyclosporine (Restasis; Allergan Inc, Irvine, California) for the treatment of moderate to severe dry eye syndrome that is unresponsive to conventional therapy. METHODS: Data from 2 multicenter, randomized, clinical trials and Food and Drug Administration files for topical cyclosporine, 0.05%, emulsion were used in Center for Value-Based Medicine analyses. Analyses included value-based medicine as a comparative effectiveness analysis and average cost-utility analysis using societal and third-party insurer cost perspectives. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcome measures of comparative effectiveness were quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain and percentage of improvement in quality of life, and for cost-effectiveness were cost-utility ratio (CUR) using dollars per QALY. RESULTS: Topical cyclosporine, 0.05%, confers a value gain (comparative effectiveness) of 0.0319 QALY per year compared with topical lubricant therapy, a 4.3% improvement in quality of life for the average patient with moderate to severe dry eye syndrome that is unresponsive to conventional lubricant therapy. The societal perspective incremental CUR for cyclosporine over vehicle therapy is $34,953 per QALY and the societal perspective average CUR is $11,199 per QALY. The third-party-insurer incremental CUR is $37,179 per QALY, while the third-party-insurer perspective average CUR is $34,343 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Topical cyclosporine emulsion, 0.05%, confers considerable patient value and is a cost-effective therapy for moderate to severe dry eye syndrome that is unresponsive to conventional therapy.