OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of trabecular micro bypass stent vs laser trabeculoplasty or medications only, for patients with open-angle glaucoma in a setting of the Colombian System Health. METHODS: This is a cost-effectiveness analysis that based its assumptions in external data sources, used to extrapolate the quality-of-life related to health, survival, and costs. A Markov model, with stages from 0 (ocular hypertension without glaucoma) to 5 and bilateral blindness, was developed inclusive of Colombians older than 40 years in 2018, from a societal perspective, comparing trabecular micro-bypass stents vs laser trabeculoplasty, timolol + dorzolamide + brimonidine, timolol + dorzolamide + latanoprost, or timolol + dorzolamide + brimatoprost, in terms of clinical and economic outcomes over a lifetime horizon. Both costs and health outcomes had an annual rate discount of 5%. Health outcomes were evaluated in terms of QALYs related with loss of visual acuity. Trabecular micro-bypass costs include the joint use of timolol, and the costs of laser trabeculoplasty include the combined use of timolol + dorzolamide. RESULTS: Trabecular micro-bypass stents were estimated to have 127,971 more discounted QALYs vs laser trabeculoplasty; 405,982 vs timolol + dorzolamide + brimonidine; and 378,287 vs timolol + dorzolamide + latanoprost or timolol + dorzolamide + brimatoprost. Cumulative costs with trabecular micro-bypass stents at 40 years was $13,252,318 lower than laser trabeculoplasty; $6,403,534, lower than timolol + dorzolamide + brimonidine; $22,311,064, lower than timolol + dorzolamide + latanoprost; and $29,156,113 lower than timolol + dorzolamide + brimatoprost. CONCLUSIONS: The trabecular micro-bypass stent is a highly cost-saving strategy due to more QALYs related to a lower rate of the population with loss of visual acuity in the long-term, and because the costs associated with additional medications and complications are lower with trabecular micro-bypass stents.
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of trabecular micro bypass stent vs laser trabeculoplasty or medications only, for patients with open-angle glaucoma in a setting of the Colombian System Health. METHODS: This is a cost-effectiveness analysis that based its assumptions in external data sources, used to extrapolate the quality-of-life related to health, survival, and costs. A Markov model, with stages from 0 (ocular hypertension without glaucoma) to 5 and bilateral blindness, was developed inclusive of Colombians older than 40 years in 2018, from a societal perspective, comparing trabecular micro-bypass stents vs laser trabeculoplasty, timolol + dorzolamide + brimonidine, timolol + dorzolamide + latanoprost, or timolol + dorzolamide + brimatoprost, in terms of clinical and economic outcomes over a lifetime horizon. Both costs and health outcomes had an annual rate discount of 5%. Health outcomes were evaluated in terms of QALYs related with loss of visual acuity. Trabecular micro-bypass costs include the joint use of timolol, and the costs of laser trabeculoplasty include the combined use of timolol + dorzolamide. RESULTS: Trabecular micro-bypass stents were estimated to have 127,971 more discounted QALYs vs laser trabeculoplasty; 405,982 vs timolol + dorzolamide + brimonidine; and 378,287 vs timolol + dorzolamide + latanoprost or timolol + dorzolamide + brimatoprost. Cumulative costs with trabecular micro-bypass stents at 40 years was $13,252,318 lower than laser trabeculoplasty; $6,403,534, lower than timolol + dorzolamide + brimonidine; $22,311,064, lower than timolol + dorzolamide + latanoprost; and $29,156,113 lower than timolol + dorzolamide + brimatoprost. CONCLUSIONS: The trabecular micro-bypass stent is a highly cost-saving strategy due to more QALYs related to a lower rate of the population with loss of visual acuity in the long-term, and because the costs associated with additional medications and complications are lower with trabecular micro-bypass stents.