Cost Evaluation of Panretinal Photocoagulation versus Intravitreal Ranibizumab for Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy

James Lin, Jonathan S. Chang, William E. Smiddy

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

16 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose To evaluate costs of panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) vs. intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) for proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR). Design A Markov-style model of cost-effectiveness and cost utility. Participants There were no participants. Methods Based on results from Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research (DRCR) Network Protocol S, we performed a Markov-style analysis to generate the total 2-year costs for each treatment arm. The cost per line-year saved and cost utility were calculated based on the estimated life years remaining. Both treatment arms were assumed to result in 9 lines of vision saved in 20% of patients. Medicare reimbursement data were acquired to determine costs, which were then separately calculated for practice settings of a hospital-based facility as the highest end of the cost range and a nonfacility in the same geographic area as the lowest end. Cost parameters for a prototypical patient's life expectancy also were modeled and calculated. Main Outcome Measures Inputed cost of therapy, cost per line saved, cost per line-year saved, and cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALY). Results When PRP was the primary treatment, the 2-year cost in the facility setting was $13 053, with cost per line saved $7252, cost per line-year $240, and cost per QALY $7988. In the nonfacility setting costs were approximately 21% lower. When IVR was the primary treatment, the 2-year cost in the facility setting was $30 328, cost per line saved was $16 849, cost per line-year $575, and cost per QALY $19 150. In the nonfacility setting costs were approximately 15% lower. Extrapolation to lifetime therapy yielded the cost per QALY with PRP treatment of $14 219 to $24 005 and with IVR of $138 852 to $164 360. Cost utility for PRP would be 85% lower than IVR in the facility setting and 90% lower than IVR in the nonfacility setting. Conclusions PRP compared with IVR as primary treatment for PDR is less expensive over 2 years, but both fall well below the accepted cost per QALY upper limit. However, over an average lifetime, the cost differential between PRP and IVR increases, and IVR therapy may exceed the typical accepted limit of cost per QALY.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1912-1918
Number of pages7
JournalOphthalmology
Volume123
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2016
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Light Coagulation
Costs and Cost Analysis
Quality-Adjusted Life Years
Ranibizumab
Diabetic Retinopathy
Therapeutics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ophthalmology

Cite this

Cost Evaluation of Panretinal Photocoagulation versus Intravitreal Ranibizumab for Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy. / Lin, James; Chang, Jonathan S.; Smiddy, William E.

In: Ophthalmology, Vol. 123, No. 9, 01.09.2016, p. 1912-1918.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{3a841c9040e44cb18d5d2b7edbe3b712,
title = "Cost Evaluation of Panretinal Photocoagulation versus Intravitreal Ranibizumab for Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy",
abstract = "Purpose To evaluate costs of panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) vs. intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) for proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR). Design A Markov-style model of cost-effectiveness and cost utility. Participants There were no participants. Methods Based on results from Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research (DRCR) Network Protocol S, we performed a Markov-style analysis to generate the total 2-year costs for each treatment arm. The cost per line-year saved and cost utility were calculated based on the estimated life years remaining. Both treatment arms were assumed to result in 9 lines of vision saved in 20{\%} of patients. Medicare reimbursement data were acquired to determine costs, which were then separately calculated for practice settings of a hospital-based facility as the highest end of the cost range and a nonfacility in the same geographic area as the lowest end. Cost parameters for a prototypical patient's life expectancy also were modeled and calculated. Main Outcome Measures Inputed cost of therapy, cost per line saved, cost per line-year saved, and cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALY). Results When PRP was the primary treatment, the 2-year cost in the facility setting was $13 053, with cost per line saved $7252, cost per line-year $240, and cost per QALY $7988. In the nonfacility setting costs were approximately 21{\%} lower. When IVR was the primary treatment, the 2-year cost in the facility setting was $30 328, cost per line saved was $16 849, cost per line-year $575, and cost per QALY $19 150. In the nonfacility setting costs were approximately 15{\%} lower. Extrapolation to lifetime therapy yielded the cost per QALY with PRP treatment of $14 219 to $24 005 and with IVR of $138 852 to $164 360. Cost utility for PRP would be 85{\%} lower than IVR in the facility setting and 90{\%} lower than IVR in the nonfacility setting. Conclusions PRP compared with IVR as primary treatment for PDR is less expensive over 2 years, but both fall well below the accepted cost per QALY upper limit. However, over an average lifetime, the cost differential between PRP and IVR increases, and IVR therapy may exceed the typical accepted limit of cost per QALY.",
author = "James Lin and Chang, {Jonathan S.} and Smiddy, {William E.}",
year = "2016",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.05.037",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "123",
pages = "1912--1918",
journal = "Ophthalmology",
issn = "0161-6420",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cost Evaluation of Panretinal Photocoagulation versus Intravitreal Ranibizumab for Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy

AU - Lin, James

AU - Chang, Jonathan S.

AU - Smiddy, William E.

PY - 2016/9/1

Y1 - 2016/9/1

N2 - Purpose To evaluate costs of panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) vs. intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) for proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR). Design A Markov-style model of cost-effectiveness and cost utility. Participants There were no participants. Methods Based on results from Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research (DRCR) Network Protocol S, we performed a Markov-style analysis to generate the total 2-year costs for each treatment arm. The cost per line-year saved and cost utility were calculated based on the estimated life years remaining. Both treatment arms were assumed to result in 9 lines of vision saved in 20% of patients. Medicare reimbursement data were acquired to determine costs, which were then separately calculated for practice settings of a hospital-based facility as the highest end of the cost range and a nonfacility in the same geographic area as the lowest end. Cost parameters for a prototypical patient's life expectancy also were modeled and calculated. Main Outcome Measures Inputed cost of therapy, cost per line saved, cost per line-year saved, and cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALY). Results When PRP was the primary treatment, the 2-year cost in the facility setting was $13 053, with cost per line saved $7252, cost per line-year $240, and cost per QALY $7988. In the nonfacility setting costs were approximately 21% lower. When IVR was the primary treatment, the 2-year cost in the facility setting was $30 328, cost per line saved was $16 849, cost per line-year $575, and cost per QALY $19 150. In the nonfacility setting costs were approximately 15% lower. Extrapolation to lifetime therapy yielded the cost per QALY with PRP treatment of $14 219 to $24 005 and with IVR of $138 852 to $164 360. Cost utility for PRP would be 85% lower than IVR in the facility setting and 90% lower than IVR in the nonfacility setting. Conclusions PRP compared with IVR as primary treatment for PDR is less expensive over 2 years, but both fall well below the accepted cost per QALY upper limit. However, over an average lifetime, the cost differential between PRP and IVR increases, and IVR therapy may exceed the typical accepted limit of cost per QALY.

AB - Purpose To evaluate costs of panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) vs. intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) for proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR). Design A Markov-style model of cost-effectiveness and cost utility. Participants There were no participants. Methods Based on results from Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research (DRCR) Network Protocol S, we performed a Markov-style analysis to generate the total 2-year costs for each treatment arm. The cost per line-year saved and cost utility were calculated based on the estimated life years remaining. Both treatment arms were assumed to result in 9 lines of vision saved in 20% of patients. Medicare reimbursement data were acquired to determine costs, which were then separately calculated for practice settings of a hospital-based facility as the highest end of the cost range and a nonfacility in the same geographic area as the lowest end. Cost parameters for a prototypical patient's life expectancy also were modeled and calculated. Main Outcome Measures Inputed cost of therapy, cost per line saved, cost per line-year saved, and cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALY). Results When PRP was the primary treatment, the 2-year cost in the facility setting was $13 053, with cost per line saved $7252, cost per line-year $240, and cost per QALY $7988. In the nonfacility setting costs were approximately 21% lower. When IVR was the primary treatment, the 2-year cost in the facility setting was $30 328, cost per line saved was $16 849, cost per line-year $575, and cost per QALY $19 150. In the nonfacility setting costs were approximately 15% lower. Extrapolation to lifetime therapy yielded the cost per QALY with PRP treatment of $14 219 to $24 005 and with IVR of $138 852 to $164 360. Cost utility for PRP would be 85% lower than IVR in the facility setting and 90% lower than IVR in the nonfacility setting. Conclusions PRP compared with IVR as primary treatment for PDR is less expensive over 2 years, but both fall well below the accepted cost per QALY upper limit. However, over an average lifetime, the cost differential between PRP and IVR increases, and IVR therapy may exceed the typical accepted limit of cost per QALY.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84978786390&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84978786390&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.05.037

DO - 10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.05.037

M3 - Article

C2 - 27425822

AN - SCOPUS:84978786390

VL - 123

SP - 1912

EP - 1918

JO - Ophthalmology

JF - Ophthalmology

SN - 0161-6420

IS - 9

ER -