June 2017
Volume 58, Issue 8
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2017
Cost effectiveness of Intravitreal Ocriplasmin for vitreomacular adhesion and macular hole
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Kapil G Kapoor
    Research, Wagner Macula & Retina Center, Virginia Beach, Virginia, United States
    Ophthalmology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Virginia Beach, Virginia, United States
  • Tayab Waseem
    Research, Wagner Macula & Retina Center, Virginia Beach, Virginia, United States
  • Colin Reinhart
    Ophthalmology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Virginia Beach, Virginia, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Kapil Kapoor, None; Tayab Waseem, None; Colin Reinhart, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2017, Vol.58, 237. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to Subscribers Only
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Kapil G Kapoor, Tayab Waseem, Colin Reinhart; Cost effectiveness of Intravitreal Ocriplasmin for vitreomacular adhesion and macular hole. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2017;58(8):237.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : Intravitreal ocriplasmin (IVO) has altered the therapeutic landscape for vitreomacular interface pathology. Recent studies have demonstrated improving success rates and this highlights the question of the cost effectiveness of IVO compared to the current standard of care - pars plana vitrectomy (PPV). The purpose of this study is to provide a new patient pool to evaluate cost efficacy of IVO for vitreomacular adhesion (VMA) and macular hole (MH).

Methods : A retrospective single center, multiple physician, IRB approved study was done of 247 patients with VMA and MH over 15 months. Clinical charts and imaging were cross referenced with billing records and total treatment cost was determined. Patients were divided into three groups: Group 1 – VMA and MH treated by PPV, Group 2 – VMA and MH treated by IVO, Group 3 – VMA treated by IVO.

Results : Initial interventional success rates were 98% (Group 1), 55.6% (Group 2), 67.7% (Group 3). Secondary success rates were 66.6% (Group 1), 81.8% (Group 2), 90% (Group 3). Cost of PPV at our institution was $6,538 and IVO cost was $3480. Quality-adjusted life years (QALY) calculation (based on average life expectancy of 14.3 years from mean patient age of 71.2 years) demonstrated an average of 2.5 lines of vision saved from successful treatment.Using a cohort-based computer model the treatment decision tree demonstrated Group 1 patients had a cost per line of $2,654.39,cost per line-year saved of $185.62, and cost per QALY of $6,187. Group 2 treatment was more cost effective with a cost per line of $2,456.25, cost per line year saved of $171.77, and cost per QALY of $5,726. The difference in cost effectiveness showed IVO was more cost effective than PPV as an initial intervention, with a difference in cost per line of $198.14, cost per line-year saved of $13.85, and cost per QALY of $461. Group 3 was cost effective with increased success rates for initial and secondary procedures.

Conclusions : IVO is a cost-effective intervention for VMA and MH with appropriate patient selection. The success rate of IVO in our patient population was greater than previously published rates, which may reflect more optimal patient selection. The success rates likely impacted the weighted probability model of cost efficacy and further research targeting optimizing success rates of IVO will be beneficial to optimize the cost efficacy of this therapeutic intervention.

This is an abstract that was submitted for the 2017 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Baltimore, MD, May 7-11, 2017.

 

×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×