Cost-Effectiveness Comparison Between Monofocal and Multifocal Intraocular Lens Implantation for Cataract Patients in Taiwan

Lin, Jen-Chieh; Yang, Ming‐Chin

doi:10.1016/j.clinthera.2014.07.009

Cited by 10 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In different studies, costs vary in regions and effectiveness varies in clinical outcomes, leading to a variation in CEA results. For instance, effectiveness was measured by quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) in Hu et al’s study or by vision-related indicators in Lin and Yang’s study [ 14 , 15 ]. In our study we evaluate effectiveness focused on full-range VA, which might attract the most attention from patients.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Presbyopia-correcting IOL (e.g., bifocal, trifocal, or EDOF IOL) is more expensive than monofocal IOL, which would increase cost to patients and to the healthcare insurance system. In high-income settings, a few studies indicate that bifocal IOL is more cost-effective than monofocal IOL in individuals desiring spectacle independence, but do not cover all strategies mentioned above [14][15][16][17]. Correlational research on the cost-effectiveness of presbyopia correction is lacking but urgent in low-and middle-income settings, such as China.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Cost-Effectiveness of Presbyopia Correction Among Seven Strategies of Bilateral Cataract Surgery Based on a Prospective Single-Blind Two-Center Trial in China

Lan

Liu

et al. 2022

Ophthalmol Ther

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction:The aim of this study was to explore a method to rank the cost-effectiveness of presbyopia correction in diverse strategies of bilateral cataract surgery to provide references for healthcare policymakers in rationalizing resource utilization and surgeons in customizing patient management. Methods:The cost-effectiveness analysis based on a prospective single-blind two-center clinical trial included seven strategies in bilateral cataract surgery: monofocal, monovision, diffractive bifocal, blended, refractive bifocal, trifocal, and extended depth of focus (EDOF) strategies. The effectiveness according to the objective spectacle independence rate (hereafter ''rate'', a novel indicator defined as the proportion of patients with binocular uncorrected distance, intermediate and near visual acuity all better than 0.1 logMAR, logarithm of the minimum angle

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost-Effectiveness of Presbyopia Correction Among Seven Strategies of Bilateral Cataract Surgery Based on a Prospective Single-Blind Two-Center Trial in China

Lan

Liu

et al. 2022

Ophthalmol Ther

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The pivotal PanOptix IOL FDA IDE clinical trial (NCT03280108) conducted across the US demonstrated continuous range of vision from distance to near, with increased spectacle independence and a high level of patient satisfaction, as compared to the AcrySof IQ monofocal IOL (model SN60AT; Alcon) [ 9 , 10 ]. Some studies have reported economic evaluations of AT-IOL versus monofocal IOL options [ 3 , 11 , 12 ]; however, there currently is no published evidence on the cost benefits of TFNT00 IOL in the US. Consequently, the objective of this study was to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of bilateral cataract surgery with TFNT00 trifocal IOL versus SN60AT monofocal IOL from the US patient perspective.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Globally, cataract surgery is one of the most commonly performed surgical procedures, and could well be considered among the most successful treatments in the field of medicine [1,2]. It is also one of the most effective health care interventions that provides greater health outcomes for a majority of patients at relatively lower costs [3][4][5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost-benefit analysis of a trifocal intraocular lens versus a monofocal intraocular lens from the patient’s perspective in the United States

Berdahl

Bala²,

Dhariwal

et al. 2022

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To conduct a cost-benefit analysis of AcrySof IQ PanOptix trifocal intraocular lens (TFNT00 IOL) versus AcrySof monofocal IOL (SN60AT) from the patient perspective in the United States (US). Methods A de novo Markov model was developed to estimate the mean total lifetime patient costs and vision-related quality of life (measured as quality adjusted life-years (QALYs)) with each intervention (TFNT00 and SN60AT) and the incremental differences between these two treatments. The resulting incremental quality of life gain was mapped to the US patient willingness to pay threshold of $50,000 per QALY gain to estimate the lifetime net monetary value, measured as the net monetary benefit of TFNT00 IOL. Model inputs (transition probabilities, costs, discount rate, utilities, and event rates) were derived from the FDA IDE study (NCT03280108), published literature, clinical experience, and other relevant sources. Results Bilateral cataract surgery with implantation of the advanced technology IOL (AT-IOL) TFNT00 provides improved vision-related quality of life (QALY gain of 0.67) at an incremental lifetime cost of $2,783 compared to monofocal IOL. This incremental QALY gain translated into a lifetime net monetary benefit of $30,941 at the patient willingness to pay threshold of $50,000/QALY gain. Results were most sensitive to disutility due to wearing glasses, patient out of pocket costs for bilateral AT-IOL procedure, and post-operative spectacle dependence rates. Conclusions AcrySof IQ PanOptix IOL provides greater improvement in vision related quality of life compared to no presbyopia correction with a monofocal IOL. This study shows PanOptix is a cost-beneficial treatment strategy for patients willing to pay out of pocket for cataract surgery.

show abstract

“…Findings from cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) are one of the important aspects of HTA that inform policy decision making. Several CEA studies [3][4][5][6][7][8][9] have been conducted in Asia to inform policy decision making. Most of the CEA studies include standardized methods recommended by the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research and Medical Decision Making Modeling Good Practices Task Force [10], such as a base-case analysis and one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Value of Information in Asia: Concepts, Current Use, and Future Directions

Dilokthornsakul

McQueen²,

Chaiyakunapruk

et al. 2016

Value in Health Regional Issues

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Health technology assessment is a form of health policy research that provides policymakers with information relevant to decisions about policy alternatives. Findings from cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) are one of the important aspects of health technology assessment. Nevertheless, the more advanced method of value of information (VOI), which is recommended by the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research and Society for Medical Decision Making Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force, has rarely been applied in CEA studies in Asia. The lack of VOI in Asian CEA studies may be due to limited understanding of VOI methods and what VOI can and cannot help policy decision makers accomplish. This concept article offers audiences a practical primer in understanding the calculation, presentation, and policy implications of VOI. In addition, it provides a rapid survey of health technology assessment guidelines and literature related to VOI in Asia and discusses the future directions of VOI use in Asia and its potential barriers. This article will enable health economists, outcomes researchers, and policymakers in Asia to better understand the importance of VOI analysis and its implications, leading to the appropriate use of VOI in Asia.

show abstract

Cost-Effectiveness Comparison Between Monofocal and Multifocal Intraocular Lens Implantation for Cataract Patients in Taiwan

Cited by 10 publications

References 26 publications

Cost-Effectiveness of Presbyopia Correction Among Seven Strategies of Bilateral Cataract Surgery Based on a Prospective Single-Blind Two-Center Trial in China

Cost-Effectiveness of Presbyopia Correction Among Seven Strategies of Bilateral Cataract Surgery Based on a Prospective Single-Blind Two-Center Trial in China

Cost-benefit analysis of a trifocal intraocular lens versus a monofocal intraocular lens from the patient’s perspective in the United States

Value of Information in Asia: Concepts, Current Use, and Future Directions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About