A Cost-Utility Analysis of Trabecular Bypass Devices Versus Usual Care for Patients With Open-Angle Glaucoma

Paul R. Healey, Dominic Tilden (), Dan Jackson and Lara Aghajanian
Additional contact information
Paul R. Healey: University of Sydney
Dominic Tilden: THEMA Consulting Pty Ltd
Dan Jackson: THEMA Consulting Pty Ltd
Lara Aghajanian: THEMA Consulting Pty Ltd

PharmacoEconomics - Open, 2022, vol. 6, issue 3, No 4, 355-365

Abstract: Abstract Objective The aim of this study was to determine whether insertion of a trabecular bypass device (TBD) is a cost-effective intervention for the treatment of open-angle glaucoma (OAG) with mild to moderate vision loss in the Australian setting. Methods We performed a cost-utility analysis of TBD implantation in conjunction with cataract surgery or as a standalone procedure in patients with OAG. The model used a Monte Carlo simulation to follow individual patients through a glaucoma treatment algorithm that included TBD and compared the costs and outcomes with those of patients simulated through an algorithm without TBD (usual care). The model tracked the intraocular pressure (IOP) of individual patients and then, based on this IOP, tracked the progression of the patient’s glaucoma. Utility values were assigned dependent on severity of glaucoma. The analysis took the perspective of the Australian health care system. The main outcome was incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of TBD versus usual care for the treatment of OAG. Results In the cataract surgery population, TBD surgery was associated with incremental healthcare costs of A$177 and 0.0726 QALYs per patient, resulting in an incremental cost per QALY gained of A$2430. In the standalone population, the overall incremental cost of TBD surgery versus usual care was A$2234. With QALYs gained of 0.1526 per patient, this equated to an incremental cost per QALY gained ratio of A$14,644. Conclusion The incremental cost per QALY estimates for TBD were below thresholds generally accepted by Australian healthcare payers, suggesting that TBD is a cost-effective intervention for patients with primary OAG in the Australian setting.

Date: 2022
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41669-021-00312-4 Abstract (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:6:y:2022:i:3:d:10.1007_s41669-021-00312-4

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/adis/journal/41669

DOI: 10.1007/s41669-021-00312-4

Access Statistics for this article

PharmacoEconomics - Open is currently edited by Timothy Wrightson and Christopher Carswell

More articles in PharmacoEconomics - Open from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().