BACKGROUND: Macular edema is the most common cause of vision loss among patients with diabetes. OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of different treatments of diabetic macular edema (DME). DESIGN: Markov model. DATA SOURCES: Published literature and expert opinion. TARGET POPULATION: Patients with clinically significant DME. TIME HORIZON: Lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: Societal. INTERVENTION: Laser treatment, intraocular injections of triamcinolone or a vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitor, or a combination of both. OUTCOME MEASURES: Discounted costs, gains in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: All treatments except laser monotherapy substantially reduced costs, and all treatments except triamcinolone monotherapy increased QALYs. Laser treatment plus a VEGF inhibitor achieved the greatest benefit, gaining 0.56 QALYs at a cost of $6975 for an ICER of $12 410 per QALY compared with laser treatment plus triamcinolone. Monotherapy with a VEGF inhibitor achieved similar outcomes to combination therapy with laser treatment plus a VEGF inhibitor. Laser monotherapy and triamcinolone monotherapy were less effective and more costly than combination therapy. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: VEGF inhibitor monotherapy was sometimes preferred over laser treatment plus a VEGF inhibitor, depending on the reduction in quality of life with loss of visual acuity. When the VEGF inhibitor bevacizumab was as effective as ranibizumab, it was preferable because of its lower cost. LIMITATION: Long-term outcome data for treated and untreated diseases are limited. CONCLUSION: The most effective treatment of DME is VEGF inhibitor injections with or without laser treatment. This therapy compares favorably with cost-effective interventions for other conditions. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
BACKGROUND:Macular edema is the most common cause of vision loss among patients with diabetes. OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of different treatments of diabetic macular edema (DME). DESIGN: Markov model. DATA SOURCES: Published literature and expert opinion. TARGET POPULATION: Patients with clinically significant DME. TIME HORIZON: Lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: Societal. INTERVENTION: Laser treatment, intraocular injections of triamcinolone or a vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitor, or a combination of both. OUTCOME MEASURES: Discounted costs, gains in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: All treatments except laser monotherapy substantially reduced costs, and all treatments except triamcinolone monotherapy increased QALYs. Laser treatment plus a VEGF inhibitor achieved the greatest benefit, gaining 0.56 QALYs at a cost of $6975 for an ICER of $12 410 per QALY compared with laser treatment plus triamcinolone. Monotherapy with a VEGF inhibitor achieved similar outcomes to combination therapy with laser treatment plus a VEGF inhibitor. Laser monotherapy and triamcinolone monotherapy were less effective and more costly than combination therapy. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: VEGF inhibitor monotherapy was sometimes preferred over laser treatment plus a VEGF inhibitor, depending on the reduction in quality of life with loss of visual acuity. When the VEGF inhibitor bevacizumab was as effective as ranibizumab, it was preferable because of its lower cost. LIMITATION: Long-term outcome data for treated and untreated diseases are limited. CONCLUSION: The most effective treatment of DME is VEGF inhibitor injections with or without laser treatment. This therapy compares favorably with cost-effective interventions for other conditions. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
Authors: Ingrid U Scott; Allison R Edwards; Roy W Beck; Neil M Bressler; Clement K Chan; Michael J Elman; Scott M Friedman; Craig Michael Greven; Raj K Maturi; Dante J Pieramici; Michel Shami; Lawrence J Singerman; Cynthia R Stockdale Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2007-08-15 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: James V Freeman; Ruo P Zhu; Douglas K Owens; Alan M Garber; David W Hutton; Alan S Go; Paul J Wang; Mintu P Turakhia Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2010-11-01 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Shelley Day; Kofi Acquah; Prithvi Mruthyunjaya; Daniel S Grossman; Paul P Lee; Frank A Sloan Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2011-06-12 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Quan Dong Nguyen; Syed Mahmood Shah; Jeffery S Heier; Diana V Do; Jennifer Lim; David Boyer; Prema Abraham; Peter A Campochiaro Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2009-08-22 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Jean-Michel Gaspoz; Pamela G Coxson; Paula A Goldman; Lawrence W Williams; Karen M Kuntz; M G Myriam Hunink; Lee Goldman Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-06-06 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Luke Rudmik; Timothy L Smith; Rodney J Schlosser; Peter H Hwang; Jess C Mace; Zachary M Soler Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2014-03-11 Impact factor: 3.325
Authors: Femke Visser; Annemarie M M Vlaar; Carlijn D J M Borm; Valentin Apostolov; Y X Lee; Irene C Notting; Henry C Weinstein; Henk W Berendse Journal: J Neurol Date: 2019-06-18 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Nikolaos T Voutsas; Eleni Papageorgiou; Alexandra Tantou; Vassilis A Dimitriou; Evangelia E Tsironi; Maria Kotoula Journal: Int Ophthalmol Date: 2022-04-13 Impact factor: 2.029
Authors: James Kang Hao Goh; Carol Y Cheung; Shaun Sebastian Sim; Pok Chien Tan; Gavin Siew Wei Tan; Tien Yin Wong Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2016-02-01
Authors: Pedro Romero-Aroca; Sofia de la Riva-Fernandez; Aida Valls-Mateu; Ramon Sagarra-Alamo; Antonio Moreno-Ribas; Nuria Soler; Domenec Puig Journal: BMC Ophthalmol Date: 2016-08-04 Impact factor: 2.209