Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Lifetime costs and effectiveness of ReSTOR compared with a monofocal IOL and Array-SA40 in the Netherlands.
Eye (Lond). 2010 Apr; 24(4):663-72.E

Abstract

PURPOSE

To estimate the lifetime cost consequences for society and the National Health Service (NHS) of bilateral monofocal (SI40NB) or multifocal (ReSTOR or Array-SA40) intraocular lense (IOL) implantation after cataract surgery.

SETTING

Public hospital in the Netherlands.

METHODS

A Markov model simulated three cohorts of patients followed 69 until 100 years of age, or death. Spectacle independence rates for each IOL were adjusted to the results of a randomized clinical trial that compared monofocal and multifocal Array-SA40 IOL implants, together with a prospective cohort of patients implanted with ReSTOR. Adjustment was performed using the propensity score method in a multivariate analysis. Resource consumption was estimated from a dedicated Dutch survey. Dutch unit costs were applied to spectacles, cataract surgery, IOLs, visits to ophthalmologists, optometrists, transport, and spectacle cleaning materials. Cost discounted at 4% and undiscounted economic results were calculated.

RESULTS

Spectacle independence rates were 86.0% for ReSTOR, 8.7% for monofocal IOLs, and 8.5% for Array-SA40. Patients lived without needing spectacles for 12.9 years after ReSTOR, for 1.4 years after monofocal IOLs, and 1.3 years after Array-SA40. ReSTOR patients bought 6.4 fewer pairs of spectacles than monofocal patients. Lifetime discounted cost consequences for the society were ReSTOR euro3969, monofocal IOLs euro4123, and Array-SA40 euro5326. Corresponding costs for the NHS were euro2415, euro2555, and euro2556, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

ReSTOR IOLs provided higher levels of spectacle independence than monofocal SI40NB or multifocal Array-SA40 IOLs resulting in savings, compared to a monofocal, over the period modelled of euro315 for society and euro140 for the NHS.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands.No affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

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

Language

eng

PubMed ID

19575029

Citation

De Vries, N E., et al. "Lifetime Costs and Effectiveness of ReSTOR Compared With a Monofocal IOL and Array-SA40 in the Netherlands." Eye (London, England), vol. 24, no. 4, 2010, pp. 663-72.
De Vries NE, Laurendeau C, Lafuma A, et al. Lifetime costs and effectiveness of ReSTOR compared with a monofocal IOL and Array-SA40 in the Netherlands. Eye (Lond). 2010;24(4):663-72.
De Vries, N. E., Laurendeau, C., Lafuma, A., Berdeaux, G., & Nuijts, R. M. (2010). Lifetime costs and effectiveness of ReSTOR compared with a monofocal IOL and Array-SA40 in the Netherlands. Eye (London, England), 24(4), 663-72. https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.2009.151
De Vries NE, et al. Lifetime Costs and Effectiveness of ReSTOR Compared With a Monofocal IOL and Array-SA40 in the Netherlands. Eye (Lond). 2010;24(4):663-72. PubMed PMID: 19575029.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Lifetime costs and effectiveness of ReSTOR compared with a monofocal IOL and Array-SA40 in the Netherlands. AU - De Vries,N E, AU - Laurendeau,C, AU - Lafuma,A, AU - Berdeaux,G, AU - Nuijts,R M M A, Y1 - 2009/07/03/ PY - 2009/7/4/entrez PY - 2009/7/4/pubmed PY - 2011/4/19/medline SP - 663 EP - 72 JF - Eye (London, England) JO - Eye (Lond) VL - 24 IS - 4 N2 - PURPOSE: To estimate the lifetime cost consequences for society and the National Health Service (NHS) of bilateral monofocal (SI40NB) or multifocal (ReSTOR or Array-SA40) intraocular lense (IOL) implantation after cataract surgery. SETTING: Public hospital in the Netherlands. METHODS: A Markov model simulated three cohorts of patients followed 69 until 100 years of age, or death. Spectacle independence rates for each IOL were adjusted to the results of a randomized clinical trial that compared monofocal and multifocal Array-SA40 IOL implants, together with a prospective cohort of patients implanted with ReSTOR. Adjustment was performed using the propensity score method in a multivariate analysis. Resource consumption was estimated from a dedicated Dutch survey. Dutch unit costs were applied to spectacles, cataract surgery, IOLs, visits to ophthalmologists, optometrists, transport, and spectacle cleaning materials. Cost discounted at 4% and undiscounted economic results were calculated. RESULTS: Spectacle independence rates were 86.0% for ReSTOR, 8.7% for monofocal IOLs, and 8.5% for Array-SA40. Patients lived without needing spectacles for 12.9 years after ReSTOR, for 1.4 years after monofocal IOLs, and 1.3 years after Array-SA40. ReSTOR patients bought 6.4 fewer pairs of spectacles than monofocal patients. Lifetime discounted cost consequences for the society were ReSTOR euro3969, monofocal IOLs euro4123, and Array-SA40 euro5326. Corresponding costs for the NHS were euro2415, euro2555, and euro2556, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: ReSTOR IOLs provided higher levels of spectacle independence than monofocal SI40NB or multifocal Array-SA40 IOLs resulting in savings, compared to a monofocal, over the period modelled of euro315 for society and euro140 for the NHS. SN - 1476-5454 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/19575029/Lifetime_costs_and_effectiveness_of_ReSTOR_compared_with_a_monofocal_IOL_and_Array_SA40_in_the_Netherlands_ L2 - https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.2009.151 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -