OBJECTIVE: The objective of this project was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of immediately sequential bilateral cataract surgery (ISBCS) versus delayed sequential bilateral cataract surgery (DSBCS) to determine whether ISBCS represents an appropriate, cost-effective way to rapidly rehabilitate a patient's visual impairment. DESIGN: A systematic review followed by a primary economic analysis with computer-based econometric modeling. PARTICIPANTS: Not applicable. METHODS: We constructed a decision analytic model from the perspective of the public third-party payer (i.e., the Ministry of Health) to conduct a CEA of both surgeries, ISBCS and DSBCS. Cost data consisted of the costs of the surgery, intravitreal injections, medications, and drops, all of which were obtained from a comprehensive literature search and from records at St. Joseph's Hospital, London, Ont. The effectiveness was measured by the utility values associated with visual acuity in the better seeing eye. RESULTS: ISBCS resulted in an incremental effectiveness of 0.08 utility at an incremental cost of $1607. Discounting the quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained by an annual interest rate of 3% resulted in 0.932 QALYs gained. The cost-effectiveness of ISBCS was calculated to be $1431 per QALY gained. A 1-way sensitivity analysis was performed by varying costs, utility values, probabilities, and discounting rates. This analysis varied the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio but did not change the conclusion. CONCLUSIONS: Health economics assessment showed that, compared with DSBCS, ISBCS is a cost-effective procedure. This finding will be highly useful to policy-makers, decision-makers, clinicians, hospital administrators, and payers in making cost-efficient decisions.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this project was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of immediately sequential bilateral cataract surgery (ISBCS) versus delayed sequential bilateral cataract surgery (DSBCS) to determine whether ISBCS represents an appropriate, cost-effective way to rapidly rehabilitate a patient's visual impairment. DESIGN: A systematic review followed by a primary economic analysis with computer-based econometric modeling. PARTICIPANTS: Not applicable. METHODS: We constructed a decision analytic model from the perspective of the public third-party payer (i.e., the Ministry of Health) to conduct a CEA of both surgeries, ISBCS and DSBCS. Cost data consisted of the costs of the surgery, intravitreal injections, medications, and drops, all of which were obtained from a comprehensive literature search and from records at St. Joseph's Hospital, London, Ont. The effectiveness was measured by the utility values associated with visual acuity in the better seeing eye. RESULTS:ISBCS resulted in an incremental effectiveness of 0.08 utility at an incremental cost of $1607. Discounting the quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained by an annual interest rate of 3% resulted in 0.932 QALYs gained. The cost-effectiveness of ISBCS was calculated to be $1431 per QALY gained. A 1-way sensitivity analysis was performed by varying costs, utility values, probabilities, and discounting rates. This analysis varied the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio but did not change the conclusion. CONCLUSIONS: Health economics assessment showed that, compared with DSBCS, ISBCS is a cost-effective procedure. This finding will be highly useful to policy-makers, decision-makers, clinicians, hospital administrators, and payers in making cost-efficient decisions.
Authors: Mor M Dickman; Lindsay S Spekreijse; Bjorn Winkens; Johannes Sag Schouten; Rob Wp Simons; Carmen D Dirksen; Rudy Mma Nuijts Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2022-04-25
Authors: L S Spekreijse; R W P Simons; B Winkens; F J H M van den Biggelaar; C D Dirksen; R M M A Nuijts Journal: BMC Ophthalmol Date: 2020-06-29 Impact factor: 2.209