AIM: To assess the cost-effectiveness of autologous retinal pigment epithelium and choroid translocation (PATCH) in neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD). METHODS: Visual acuity and complication rates of published patient series were used to determine the incremental utility of treatment for the patient. The utility data applied assume that the better eye was affected. Comparator was a meta-analysis of recent control groups, in which patients received best supportive care. To assess cost-effectiveness, costs per quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs of avoiding low vision ("legal blindness", i.e. ≤20/200) were calculated. Costs were based on a German sick fund perspective and in a scenario on US costs. Robustness of the model was investigated by univariate and probabilistic multivariate sensitivity analysis (PSA). RESULTS: Cost-utility analysis showed surgery to be the dominant ("cost-saving") strategy for Germany and for the US in both, cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis (costs per QALY). In the sensitivity analysis the intervention remained dominant or cost-effective in all scenarios investigated. Clinical outcomes and duration of modeling were the most influential factors in the sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: Therapy of neovascular AMD by PATCH is a cost-effective treatment option for selected patients, who are not well suitable for other current treatment options.
AIM: To assess the cost-effectiveness of autologous retinal pigment epithelium and choroid translocation (PATCH) in neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD). METHODS: Visual acuity and complication rates of published patient series were used to determine the incremental utility of treatment for the patient. The utility data applied assume that the better eye was affected. Comparator was a meta-analysis of recent control groups, in which patients received best supportive care. To assess cost-effectiveness, costs per quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs of avoiding low vision ("legal blindness", i.e. ≤20/200) were calculated. Costs were based on a German sick fund perspective and in a scenario on US costs. Robustness of the model was investigated by univariate and probabilistic multivariate sensitivity analysis (PSA). RESULTS: Cost-utility analysis showed surgery to be the dominant ("cost-saving") strategy for Germany and for the US in both, cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis (costs per QALY). In the sensitivity analysis the intervention remained dominant or cost-effective in all scenarios investigated. Clinical outcomes and duration of modeling were the most influential factors in the sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: Therapy of neovascular AMD by PATCH is a cost-effective treatment option for selected patients, who are not well suitable for other current treatment options.
Authors: Tien Y Wong; Tien Wong; Usha Chakravarthy; Ronald Klein; Paul Mitchell; Gergana Zlateva; Ronald Buggage; Kyle Fahrbach; Corey Probst; Isabella Sledge Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2007-08-06 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: David M Brown; Peter K Kaiser; Mark Michels; Gisele Soubrane; Jeffrey S Heier; Robert Y Kim; Judy P Sy; Susan Schneider Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-10-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Kristel Maaijwee; Heinrich Heimann; Tom Missotten; Paul Mulder; Antonia Joussen; Jan van Meurs Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2007-06-12 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: F M A Heussen; N F Fawzy; S Joeres; A Lux; K Maaijwee; J Cv Meurs; B Kirchhof; A M Joussen Journal: Eye (Lond) Date: 2007-07-20 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: Alan F Cruess; Gergana Zlateva; Xiao Xu; Gisèle Soubrane; Daniel Pauleikhoff; Andrew Lotery; Jordi Mones; Ronald Buggage; Caroline Schaefer; Tyler Knight; Thomas F Goss Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2008 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: Gisèle Soubrane; Alan Cruess; Andrew Lotery; Daniel Pauleikhoff; Jordi Monès; Xiao Xu; Gergana Zlateva; Ronald Buggage; John Conlon; Thomas F Goss Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 2007-09
Authors: M Veckeneer; C Augustinus; E Feron; P-P Schauwvlieghe; J Ruys; I Cosemans; J Van Meurs Journal: Eye (Lond) Date: 2017-07-21 Impact factor: 3.775