The comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of vitreoretinal interventions

Purpose of review The comparative effectiveness of medical interventions has recently been emphasized in the literature, typically for interventions in a similar class. Value-based medicine, the practice of medicine based on the value (improvement in quality of life and/or length of life) conferred by medical interventions, allows a measure of comparative effectiveness of interventions across all of health care, no matter how disparate. This report discusses recent comparative effectiveness studies in the vitreoretinal literature. Recent findings Vitreoretinal interventions have good to excellent comparative effectiveness compared with commonly utilized interventions across health care, such as treatment for osteoporosis and hyperlipidemia. They also tend to be cost-effective when an upper limit of $100000/quality-adjusted life-year is utilized. Summary Value can be measured using either or both of two outcomes - the quality-adjusted life-year gain and/or the percentage improvement in value - both of which allow for an evaluation of comparative effectiveness, which can be compared on the same scale for every intervention. This value can also be integrated with costs using the outcome of dollars expended per quality-adjusted life-year ($/quality-adjusted life-year, or the cost-utility ratio), which allows a comparison of cost-effectiveness across all interventions. The majority of vitreoretinal interventions confer considerable value and are cost-effective.