Cost Evaluation of Early Vitrectomy versus Panretinal Photocoagulation and Intravitreal Ranibizumab for Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy.

Jonathan Chang // Publications // Sep 01 2018

PubMed ID: 29606379

Author(s): Lin J, Chang JS, Yannuzzi NA, Smiddy WE. Cost evaluation of early vitrectomy versus panretinal photocoagulation and intravitreal ranibizumab for proliferative diabetic retinopathy. Ophthalmology. 2018 Sep;125(9):1393-1400. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2018.02.038. Epub 2018 Mar 29. PMID 29606379

Journal: Ophthalmology, Volume 125, Issue 9, Sep 2018

PURPOSE To evaluate costs and cost-utility of early vitrectomy (pars plana vitrectomy [PPV]) compared with panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) and intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) for proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) without diabetic macular edema.

DESIGN A decision analysis model of cost-utility.

PARTICIPANTS There were no participants.

METHODS A decision analysis was based on results from the Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network Protocol S comparing treatment of PRP with IVR (0.3 mg) in PDR without incident macular edema to model the total 2-year costs and outcomes for each treatment scenario. These values were compared with the 2-year hypothetical costs of early PPV for PDR. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services data were used to calculate associated modeled costs in a hospital/facility-based and nonfacility setting. Cost-utility was calculated on the basis of the preserved visual utility and estimated life years remaining. In addition, costs for lifetime treatment were modeled for all scenarios and used to calculate lifetime quality-adjusted life years (QALY) costs for each scenario. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the impact of the model’s assumptions.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Cost of treatment, utility, and cost per QALY.

RESULTS The modeled cost per QALY of treatment for PDR for 2 years of utility in the facility (nonfacility) setting was $163 988 ($102 559) in the PRP group, $436 992 ($326 424) in the IVR group, and $181 144 ($107 965) in the PPV group. Sensitivity analysis showed that both IVR and PPV groups would have equivalent costs per QALY over the first 2 years if 78% (facility) and 80% (nonfacility) of patients in the PPV group required additional treatment with IVR (at the dose of 10.1 injections as in Protocol S). Beyond 2 years, the cost per QALY in the facility (nonfacility) setting was calculated as $61 695 ($21 752) in the PRP group, $338 348 ($239 741) in the IVR group, and $63 942 ($22 261) in the PPV group.

CONCLUSIONS Early PPV as a strategy for treatment of PDR without macular edema demonstrates cost-utility similar to management with PRP and more favorable cost-utility compared with IVR in the short term. This advantage over IVR continues when lifetime costs are factored.

Copyright © 2018 American Academy of Ophthalmology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.