Cost-Effectiveness of Descemet's Stripping Endothelial Keratoplasty versus Penetrating Keratoplasty

被引:33
|
作者
Bose, Saideep [1 ]
Ang, Marcus [2 ,3 ]
Mehta, Jodhbir S. [2 ,3 ,4 ,5 ]
Tan, Donald T. [2 ]
Finkelstein, Eric [1 ]
机构
[1] Duke NUS Grad Med Sch, Singapore 169857, Singapore
[2] Singapore Natl Eye Ctr, Singapore, Singapore
[3] Singapore Eye Res Inst, Singapore, Singapore
[4] Natl Univ Hlth Syst, Dept Ophthalmol, Singapore, Singapore
[5] Duke NUS Grad Med Sch, Dept Clin Sci, Singapore, Singapore
关键词
QUALITY-OF-LIFE; VISUAL-ACUITY; CORNEAL TRANSPLANTATION; LAMELLAR KERATOPLASTY; KERATOCONUS; UTILITY; EYES;
D O I
10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.08.024
中图分类号
R77 [眼科学];
学科分类号
100212 ;
摘要
Purpose: Selective endothelial transplantation in the form of Descemet's stripping endothelial keratoplasty (DSEK) is rapidly replacing traditional full-thickness penetrating keratoplasty (PK) for endothelial disease. An incremental cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to determine whether the benefits of DSEK are worth the additional costs. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Participants: Patients at the Singapore National Eye Center, a tertiary eye center in Singapore, with Fuchs' dystrophy or bullous keratopathy who underwent either PK or DSEK. Intervention: Patients underwent either PK (n = 171) or DSEK (n = 93) from January 2001 through December 2007. Data were collected from inpatient and outpatient notes corresponding to the time immediately before the procedure to up to 3 years after. Main Outcome Measures: Improvements in best spectacle-corrected visual acuity were used to calculate the increase in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) 3 years after the procedure. This was combined with hospital charges (a proxy for costs) to determine incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) comparing PK with no intervention and DSEK with PK. Results: Three-year charges for DSEK and PK were $7476 and $7236, respectively. The regression-adjusted improvement in visual acuity for PK relative to no intervention was -0.613 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) units (P<0.001), and for DSEK relative to PK, it was -0.199 logMAR units (P = 0.045). The regression-adjusted marginal gain in utility for PK relative to no intervention was 0.128 QALYs (P<0.001) and for DSEK relative to PK was 0.046 QALYs (P = 0.031). This resulted in ICERs of $56 409 per QALY for PK relative to no intervention and $5209 per QALY for the more expensive DSEK relative to PK. Conclusions: If the goal is to maximize societal health gains given fixed resources, DSEK should be the preferred strategy. For a fixed budget, it is possible to achieve greater QALY gains by providing DSEK to as many patients as possible (and nothing to others), rather than providing PK. Financial Disclosure(s): The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article. Ophthalmology 2013;120:464-470 (C) 2013 by the American Academy of Ophthalmology.
引用
收藏
页码:464 / 470
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Cost-effectiveness of Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty versus penetrating keratoplasty in patients with endothelial dysfunction in India
    Shah, Pooja
    Mukhija, Ritika
    Gupta, Noopur
    Vanathi, M.
    Tandon, Radhika
    INDIAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2021, 69 (09) : 2447 - 2451
  • [2] Comparative Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Descemet Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty Versus Penetrating Keratoplasty in the United States
    Prabhu, Shreya S.
    Kaakeh, Rola
    Sugar, Alan
    Smith, Dean G.
    Shtein, Roni M.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2013, 155 (01) : 45 - 53
  • [3] Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Descemet's Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty Versus Descemet's Stripping Endothelial Keratoplasty in the United States
    Gibbons, Allister
    Leung, Ella H.
    Yoo, Sonia H.
    OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2019, 126 (02) : 207 - 213
  • [4] Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty Versus Descemet Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty and Penetrating Keratoplasty
    Woo, Jyh-Haur
    Ang, Marcus
    Htoon, Hla Myint
    Tan, Donald
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2019, 207 : 288 - 303
  • [5] Descemet stripping and automated endothelial keratoplasty: An alternative to penetrating keratoplasty
    Chih, Andreea
    Lugo, Miguel
    Kowing, Dianne
    OPTOMETRY AND VISION SCIENCE, 2008, 85 (03) : 152 - 157
  • [6] Descemet's stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty and penetrating keratoplasty for Fuchs' endothelial dystrophy
    Hjortdal, Jesper
    Ehlers, Niels
    ACTA OPHTHALMOLOGICA, 2009, 87 (03) : 310 - 314
  • [7] Changing Indications for Penetrating Keratoplasty With the Introduction of Descemet's Stripping Endothelial Keratoplasty
    Baqai, J.
    Grostern, R.
    Rubenstein, J.
    INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE, 2010, 51 (13)
  • [8] Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty Versus Descemet Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty
    Tourtas, Theofilos
    Laaser, Kathrin
    Bachmann, Bjoern O.
    Cursiefen, Claus
    Kruse, Friedrich E.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2012, 153 (06) : 1082 - 1090
  • [9] Comparison of Descemet Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty and Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty in the Treatment of Failed Penetrating Keratoplasty
    Einan-Lifshitz, Adi
    Mednick, Zale
    Belkin, Avner
    Sorkin, Nir
    Alshaker, Sara
    Boutin, Tanguy
    Chan, Clara C.
    Rootman, David S.
    CORNEA, 2019, 38 (09) : 1077 - 1082
  • [10] Endothelial Keratoplasty Without Descemet Stripping After Failed Penetrating Keratoplasty
    de Paula, Fernando Heitor
    Kamyar, Roheena
    Shtein, Roni M.
    Sugar, Alan
    Mian, Shahzad I.
    CORNEA, 2012, 31 (06) : 645 - 648