Allister Gibbons1, Ella H Leung2, Sonia H Yoo3. 1. Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, University of Miami, Miami, Florida. Electronic address: agibbons@med.miami.edu. 2. Cullen Eye Institute, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas. 3. Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, University of Miami, Miami, Florida.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of Descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) compared with Descemet's stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) in the United States. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis in a surgical center in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: Binocular adult patient undergoing endothelial keratoplasty. METHODS: A base case of a 70-year-old man undergoing his first endothelial keratoplasty for bilateral Fuchs endothelial dystrophy. The cost-effectiveness of DMEK was compared with DSAEK over a 15-year time horizon. The incidences and costs of complications were derived from PubMed English literature searches, Medicare reimbursements, and average wholesale prices. All costs were discounted 3% per annum and adjusted for inflation to 2018 U.S. dollars. Uncertainty was evaluated using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and incremental cost-utility ratios, measured in cost per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). RESULTS: Performing a DMEK instead of a DSAEK generated an extra 0.4 QALYs over a 15-year period. From a societal and third-party payer perspective, DMEK was cost-saving when compared with DSAEK in improving visual acuity in the base case. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses with variations in the costs and rebubble rates revealed that DMEK was cost-saving compared with DSAEK in 38% of iterations and was within a societal willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000 in 98% of models. CONCLUSIONS: From the societal and third-party payer perspectives in the United States, DMEK generated greater utilities and was less costly than DSAEK. Therefore, DMEK was the dominant procedure and was cost-saving with respect to DSAEK. The economic model was robust based on sensitivity analyses.
PURPOSE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of Descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) compared with Descemet's stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) in the United States. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis in a surgical center in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: Binocular adult patient undergoing endothelial keratoplasty. METHODS: A base case of a 70-year-old man undergoing his first endothelial keratoplasty for bilateral Fuchs endothelial dystrophy. The cost-effectiveness of DMEK was compared with DSAEK over a 15-year time horizon. The incidences and costs of complications were derived from PubMed English literature searches, Medicare reimbursements, and average wholesale prices. All costs were discounted 3% per annum and adjusted for inflation to 2018 U.S. dollars. Uncertainty was evaluated using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and incremental cost-utility ratios, measured in cost per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). RESULTS: Performing a DMEK instead of a DSAEK generated an extra 0.4 QALYs over a 15-year period. From a societal and third-party payer perspective, DMEK was cost-saving when compared with DSAEK in improving visual acuity in the base case. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses with variations in the costs and rebubble rates revealed that DMEK was cost-saving compared with DSAEK in 38% of iterations and was within a societal willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000 in 98% of models. CONCLUSIONS: From the societal and third-party payer perspectives in the United States, DMEK generated greater utilities and was less costly than DSAEK. Therefore, DMEK was the dominant procedure and was cost-saving with respect to DSAEK. The economic model was robust based on sensitivity analyses.
Authors: Peter B Veldman; Philip K Dye; Jeffrey D Holiman; Zachary M Mayko; Christopher S Sáles; Michael D Straiko; Joshua D Galloway; Mark A Terry Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2015-10-04 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Sophie X Deng; W Barry Lee; Kristin M Hammersmith; Anthony N Kuo; Jennifer Y Li; Joanne F Shen; Mitchell P Weikert; Roni M Shtein Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2017-09-15 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Frank J H M van den Biggelaar; Yanny Y Y Cheng; Rudy M M A Nuijts; Jan S A G Schouten; Robert-Jan Wijdh; Elisabeth Pels; Hugo van Cleynenbreugel; Catharina A Eggink; Wilhelmina J Rijneveld; Carmen D Dirksen Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2012-04-27 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: A-K B Maier; E Gundlach; J Gonnermann; M K J Klamann; E Bertelmann; P W Rieck; A M Joussen; N Torun Journal: Eye (Lond) Date: 2014-11-21 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: Bruce D S Allan; Mark A Terry; Francis W Price; Marianne O Price; Neil B Griffin; Margareta Claesson Journal: Cornea Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 2.651
Authors: Gillian D Sanders; Peter J Neumann; Anirban Basu; Dan W Brock; David Feeny; Murray Krahn; Karen M Kuntz; David O Meltzer; Douglas K Owens; Lisa A Prosser; Joshua A Salomon; Mark J Sculpher; Thomas A Trikalinos; Louise B Russell; Joanna E Siegel; Theodore G Ganiats Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-09-13 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Rob W P Simons; Mor M Dickman; Frank J H M van den Biggelaar; Carmen D Dirksen; Jeroen Van Rooij; Lies Remeijer; Allegonda Van der Lelij; Robert H J Wijdh; Pieter J Kruit; Rudy M M A Nuijts Journal: Acta Ophthalmol Date: 2019-04-26 Impact factor: 3.761
Authors: Stephan Ong Tone; Viridiana Kocaba; Myriam Böhm; Adam Wylegala; Tomas L White; Ula V Jurkunas Journal: Prog Retin Eye Res Date: 2020-05-08 Impact factor: 21.198