AIM: To determine whether internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling is cost-effective compared with no peeling for patients with an idiopathic stage 2 or 3 full-thickness macular hole. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed alongside a randomised controlled trial. 141 participants were randomly allocated to receive macular-hole surgery, with either ILM peeling or no peeling. Health-service resource use, costs and quality of life were calculated for each participant. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained was calculated at 6 months. RESULTS: At 6 months, the total costs were on average higher (£424, 95% CI -182 to 1045) in the No Peel arm, primarily owing to the higher reoperation rate in the No Peel arm. The mean additional QALYs from ILM peel at 6 months were 0.002 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.013), adjusting for baseline EQ-5D and other minimisation factors. A mean incremental cost per QALY was not computed, as Peeling was on average less costly and slightly more effective. A stochastic analysis suggested that there was more than a 90% probability that Peeling would be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY. CONCLUSION: Although there is no evidence of a statistically significant difference in either costs or QALYs between macular hole surgery with or without ILM peeling, the balance of probabilities is that ILM Peeling is likely to be a cost-effective option for the treatment of macular holes. Further long-term follow-up data are needed to confirm these findings.
RCT Entities:
AIM: To determine whether internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling is cost-effective compared with no peeling for patients with an idiopathic stage 2 or 3 full-thickness macular hole. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed alongside a randomised controlled trial. 141 participants were randomly allocated to receive macular-hole surgery, with either ILM peeling or no peeling. Health-service resource use, costs and quality of life were calculated for each participant. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained was calculated at 6 months. RESULTS: At 6 months, the total costs were on average higher (£424, 95% CI -182 to 1045) in the No Peel arm, primarily owing to the higher reoperation rate in the No Peel arm. The mean additional QALYs from ILM peel at 6 months were 0.002 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.013), adjusting for baseline EQ-5D and other minimisation factors. A mean incremental cost per QALY was not computed, as Peeling was on average less costly and slightly more effective. A stochastic analysis suggested that there was more than a 90% probability that Peeling would be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY. CONCLUSION: Although there is no evidence of a statistically significant difference in either costs or QALYs between macular hole surgery with or without ILM peeling, the balance of probabilities is that ILM Peeling is likely to be a cost-effective option for the treatment of macular holes. Further long-term follow-up data are needed to confirm these findings.
Authors: Renata Moreto; Ana Claudia Brancato De Lucca Perches; Felipe Almeida; Rodrigo Jorge; André Messias; Katrin Gekeler Journal: Doc Ophthalmol Date: 2019-09-03 Impact factor: 2.379
Authors: M Rinaldi; R dell'Omo; F Morescalchi; F Semeraro; E Gambicorti; F Cacciatore; F Chiosi; C Costagliola Journal: Int Ophthalmol Date: 2017-10-31 Impact factor: 2.031
Authors: Alfredo García-Layana; José García-Arumí; José M Ruiz-Moreno; Lluís Arias-Barquet; Francisco Cabrera-López; Marta S Figueroa Journal: J Ophthalmol Date: 2015-03-03 Impact factor: 1.909
Authors: Francesco Semeraro; Francesco Morescalchi; Sarah Duse; Elena Gambicorti; Andrea Russo; Ciro Costagliola Journal: J Ophthalmol Date: 2015-09-03 Impact factor: 1.909
Authors: Chul Hee Lee; Min Woo Lee; Eun Young Choi; Suk Ho Byeon; Sung Soo Kim; Hyoung Jun Koh; Sung Chul Lee; Min Kim Journal: J Ophthalmol Date: 2018-10-21 Impact factor: 1.909