Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Modelling lifetime cost consequences of ReSTOR for presbyopia in four European countries.
Eye (Lond). 2009 May; 23(5):1072-80.E

Abstract

AIMS

To compare the lifetime cost consequences, in France, Italy, Germany and Spain, of liberating presbyopic patients from spectacles by implanting the multifocal intraocular lens ReSTOR.

METHODS

A Markov model was created to compare a patient cohort implanted with ReSTOR at age 45 years, with a cohort using spectacles, until death or age 100 years. Prevalence rates of patients not requiring spectacles after surgery were obtained from clinical trials. Resource utilisation included implant surgery, spectacles, visits to ophthalmologists and optic centres, transport and time lost by patients. Economic perspectives were those of society and sickness funds. Mortality rates were introduced into the model. Cataract surgery was allowed just for the spectacles-only cohort.

RESULTS

Rate of spectacle independence was fixed at 80% for ReSTOR. When time spent to care for refraction was not taken into account, lifelong ReSTOR cost was higher than spectacles in all countries (293 euro; 1013 euro), according to the societal perspective. When time was included, cost saving was observed in Italy (136 euro) and the incremental cost to be free of spectacles comprised between \[euro]11 and \[euro]816. According to the NHS perspective, ReSTOR is a cost saving strategy (-274 euro; -605 euro).

CONCLUSIONS

At a 3% discount rate, savings achieved by liberating patients from spectacles counterbalanced partially the initially higher cost of ReSTOR according to the society perspective. ReSTOR could be considered as cost-effective in the four countries provided that the willingness to pay of patients to be free of spectacles would be lower than 23.65 euro/year.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Cemka, Bourg-la-Reine, France.No affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Language

eng

PubMed ID

18636081

Citation

Lafuma, A, and G Berdeaux. "Modelling Lifetime Cost Consequences of ReSTOR for Presbyopia in Four European Countries." Eye (London, England), vol. 23, no. 5, 2009, pp. 1072-80.
Lafuma A, Berdeaux G. Modelling lifetime cost consequences of ReSTOR for presbyopia in four European countries. Eye (Lond). 2009;23(5):1072-80.
Lafuma, A., & Berdeaux, G. (2009). Modelling lifetime cost consequences of ReSTOR for presbyopia in four European countries. Eye (London, England), 23(5), 1072-80. https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.2008.223
Lafuma A, Berdeaux G. Modelling Lifetime Cost Consequences of ReSTOR for Presbyopia in Four European Countries. Eye (Lond). 2009;23(5):1072-80. PubMed PMID: 18636081.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Modelling lifetime cost consequences of ReSTOR for presbyopia in four European countries. AU - Lafuma,A, AU - Berdeaux,G, Y1 - 2008/07/18/ PY - 2008/7/19/pubmed PY - 2011/3/15/medline PY - 2008/7/19/entrez SP - 1072 EP - 80 JF - Eye (London, England) JO - Eye (Lond) VL - 23 IS - 5 N2 - AIMS: To compare the lifetime cost consequences, in France, Italy, Germany and Spain, of liberating presbyopic patients from spectacles by implanting the multifocal intraocular lens ReSTOR. METHODS: A Markov model was created to compare a patient cohort implanted with ReSTOR at age 45 years, with a cohort using spectacles, until death or age 100 years. Prevalence rates of patients not requiring spectacles after surgery were obtained from clinical trials. Resource utilisation included implant surgery, spectacles, visits to ophthalmologists and optic centres, transport and time lost by patients. Economic perspectives were those of society and sickness funds. Mortality rates were introduced into the model. Cataract surgery was allowed just for the spectacles-only cohort. RESULTS: Rate of spectacle independence was fixed at 80% for ReSTOR. When time spent to care for refraction was not taken into account, lifelong ReSTOR cost was higher than spectacles in all countries (293 euro; 1013 euro), according to the societal perspective. When time was included, cost saving was observed in Italy (136 euro) and the incremental cost to be free of spectacles comprised between \[euro]11 and \[euro]816. According to the NHS perspective, ReSTOR is a cost saving strategy (-274 euro; -605 euro). CONCLUSIONS: At a 3% discount rate, savings achieved by liberating patients from spectacles counterbalanced partially the initially higher cost of ReSTOR according to the society perspective. ReSTOR could be considered as cost-effective in the four countries provided that the willingness to pay of patients to be free of spectacles would be lower than 23.65 euro/year. SN - 1476-5454 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/18636081/Modelling_lifetime_cost_consequences_of_ReSTOR_for_presbyopia_in_four_European_countries_ L2 - https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.2008.223 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -