Cost-effectiveness of the AMOArray Multifocal Intraocular Lens in Cataract Surgery

Economic evaluations in cataract surgery: a narrative review

Economic evaluations are tools for assessing emerging technologies and a complement for decision-making in healthcare systems. However, this topic may not be familiar for doctors and academics, who may be confused when interpreting the results of studies using these tools. Cataract is a disease which has received special attention in healthcare systems due to its high incidence, the great impact that it could have on patients' quality of life, and the fact that it can be definitively solved in almost all cases through cataract surgery. Historically, economic evaluations in cataract surgery have been conducted for many purposes by simply assessing whether the surgery is cost-effective for specific questions related to the implantation of multifocal intraocular lenses, surgical techniques, optimizing assessments, preventing diseases or complications, etc. Moreover, although there are systematic reviews about cataract surgery and narrative reviews introducing the concept of economic evaluations, as far as we know, no previous study has been conducted that synthesizes and integrates evidence coming from both fields. Thus, the purpose of this narrative review is to introduce doctors and academics to economic evaluation tools, to describe how these have been historically applied to cataract surgery, and to provide special considerations for the correct interpretation of economic studies.

Economic Evaluation of Cataract: A Systematic Mapping Review

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this article was to ascertain the existing literature and find the gaps in economic evaluations of cataracts.

METHODS

Systematic methods were used to search and collect the published literature on economic evaluations of cataracts. A mapping review of studies published in the following bibliographical databases was performed: the National Library of Medicine (PubMed), EMBASE, Web of Science (WOS), and the Central of Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) database. A descriptive analysis was conducted and relevant studies were classified into different groups.

RESULTS

Among 984 studies screened, 56 studies were included in the mapping review. Four research questions were answered. There has been a progressive increase of publications during the last decade. The majority of the included studies were published by authors from institutions in the USA and UK. The most commonly investigated area was cataract surgery followed by intraocular lenses (IOLs). The studies were classified into different categories according to the main outcome evaluated, such as comparisons between different surgical techniques, costs of the cataract surgery, second eye cataract surgery costs, quality of life gain after cataract surgery, waiting time of cataract surgery and costs, and cataract evaluation, follow-up, and costs. In the IOL classification, the most frequently studied area was the comparison between monofocal and multifocal IOLs, followed by the comparison between toric and monofocal IOLs.

CONCLUSIONS

Cataract surgery is a cost-effective procedure compared with other non-ophthalmic and ophthalmic interventions and surgery waiting time is an important factor to consider because vision loss has a huge and broad-ranging impact on society. Numerous gaps and inconsistencies are found among the studies included. For this reason, there is a need for further studies according to the classification described in the mapping review.

Cost-effectiveness comparison between monofocal and multifocal intraocular lens implantation for cataract patients in Taiwan

PURPOSE

Our aim was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of monofocal and multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) for cataract patients in Taiwan.

METHODS

This prospective nonrandomized study was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of monofocal and multifocal IOLs by means of visual performance, visual quality, vision-related quality of life, and spectacle-independence rates. The direct costs were calculated using the payment points of the fee schedule for medical services multiplied by the treatment items. The concept of incremental cost effectiveness ratios was used to evaluate the costs of different types of IOLs in cataract surgery and postoperative outcomes in patients.

FINDINGS

A total of 61 patients from the monofocal IOL group (n = 21), multifocal IOL group 1 (n = 22), and multifocal IOL group 2 (n = 18) who completed the study were included in the analysis. No significant differences were observed in mean ages or patient to eye ratio. Significant differences in effectiveness after the implantations of monofocal and multifocal IOLs were observed for spectacle-free rate and monocular contrast sensitivity under glare conditions only. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of monofocal versus multifocal IOLs indicated that it cost an additional $57 to $58 (US dollars) to increase each 1% of the spectacle-independence rate.

IMPLICATIONS

This study's results indicated that multifocal IOLs provided better effectiveness on vision-related indicators like the incremental cost effectiveness ratios of postoperative spectacle-independence rate and binocular best-corrected visual acuity measurements at near vision. Our findings suggest that multifocal IOLs can be highly cost effective for patients who prefer to be spectacle free, so it is important to ensure that patients have realistic expectations when making choices between monofocal and multifocal IOLs.

Pupil size influence on the intraocular performance of the multifocal AMO-Array intraocular lens in elderly patients

PURPOSE

To study the relationship between pupil size and AMO-Array multifocal intraocular lens (MIOL) performance in a population of elderly patients.

METHODS

This prospective trial included 62 patients (mean age 76 years; range 70 to 86) undergoing bilateral cataract phacoemulsification and MIOL (AMO-Array SA-40N, Allergan) implantation. Patients were divided into two groups based on preoperative pupil diameter: small pupil group (pupil size of 2.5-2.9 mm; 45 subjects) and large pupil group (pupil size of 3-5 mm; 17 subjects). The analysis included uncorrected (UC) and best-corrected (BC) near and distance visual acuity (VA), spectacle dependence, and photic phenomena complaints (postoperative follow-up 16.6+/-6.2 months; range 11-26 months).

RESULTS

Patients in the small pupil group showed postoperatively significantly higher distance UCVA and BCVA, but lower near UCVA compared to those in the large pupil group (Mann-Whitney test, p< or = 0.02). Patients with small pupils also tended to: be more (not statistically significant) spectacle independent for distance (73.3% versus 47.1%) and spectacle-dependent for near vision (55.6% versus 28.4%); report significantly less photic phenomena complaints (37.8% versus 93.1%, chisquare test, p<0.001); and, more satisfied with the surgery (95.5% versus 76.5%). Posterior capsular opacification (PCO) was observed in 19.4% of the patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Bilateral AMO-Array MIOL implantation in elderly patients seems to be an effective and safe surgical procedure that improves distance and near UCVA, providing spectacle independence in many cases. The use of these MIOLs, however, can induce photic phenomena and cause PCO. Patients with small preoperative pupils (<3 mm) presented less photic phenomena complaints and expressed a higher visual outcome satisfaction after surgery.

Innovations in eye surgery

The field of ophthalmology has undergone revolutionary changes during the past few decades. Advancements in understanding the pathophysiology of eye diseases, superior surgical instrumentation and surgeon skills, and cotreatment with medical therapies have enhanced outcomes. The geriatric population, preferentially affected by these illnesses, has seen a meaningful visual benefit from these surgical innovations. Most importantly, these improvements have led to increases in quality-of-life measures and mental and physical well-being of aging patients.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of PMMA, silicone, or acrylic intra-ocular lenses in cataract surgery in four European countries

PURPOSE

To compare the cost-effectiveness of different intra-ocular lens (IOL) materials (Hydrophobic acrylic, Polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), Hydrophilic acrylic and Silicone) implanted after cataract surgery with reference to Nd:YAG laser capsulotomy and Nd:YAG-related complications in four European countries (France, Italy, Germany and Spain).

SETTING

A retrospective review of 1,525 patients (eyes), aged 50 to 80 years, operated with phacoemulsification for cataract in 1996 or 1997 in 16 surgical centres (4 per country).

METHODS

The study was conducted using a cost-effectiveness approach. Medical charts were reviewed to collect retrospective information during the 3-year period following cataract surgery in order to identify patients who underwent Nd:YAG laser capsulotomy post-operatively. Clinical data were combined with unit costs assessed by experts for Nd:YAG laser capsulotomy and their complications. A cost-effectiveness ratio (cost per patient without Nd:YAG laser capsulotomy intervention) was estimated in relation to each IOL material used in each of the four European countries.

RESULTS

Hydrophobic acrylic, specifically Acrysof, was the most cost-effective IOL material in all the countries except Germany where it was second. PMMA had the best ratio in Germany, was second in Spain and only third in Italy and France. Silicone was second in France and ranked third in the other countries, while hydrophilic acrylic had the worst ratio overall in all countries.

CONCLUSIONS

Cost-effectiveness ratios of hydrophobic acrylic (Acrysof) were better than those of other types of IOL materials used in most of the countries. Sensitivity analyses were performed to vary the base case analysis to demonstrate the economic importance of the assumptions. In all cases, hydrophobic acrylic IOL material was shown to be a highly cost-effective option.

Effectiveness of multifocal intraocular lenses to correct presbyopia after cataract surgery: a randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

Although monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) are effective in improving vision after cataract surgery, the loss of accommodation is not restored by implantation of these IOLs. Because multifocal IOLs may improve uncorrected distance and near vision, we compared the clinical outcome and patient satisfaction after implantation of monofocal and multifocal IOLs. Sociodemographics, eagerness for spectacle independence (ESI), and neuroticism were tested as predictors of satisfaction.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial.

PARTICIPANTS

Cataract patients with no ocular comorbidity were operated from August 1999 to January 2001; 75 patients were implanted with monofocal IOLs, and 78 with multifocal IOLs.

METHODS

Assessments were made preoperatively (t1), 3 months after first-eye surgery (t2), and 3 months after second-eye surgery (t3). Primary outcomes were obtained by ophthalmic tests, whereas secondary outcomes were examined by interviews.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcomes consisted of near and distance visual acuity (VA). Secondary outcomes related to spectacle dependence, vision-related functioning, and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

At t3, multifocal IOLs showed significantly better uncorrected near VA than monofocal IOLs (P<0.01) and an increase in quality ratings of unaided near vision between t1 and t3 (on a scale of 1-5: 1.6 at t1 vs. 2.9 at t3, P<0.001). At t2 and t3, patients with multifocal IOLs were more likely to "never" or "only now and then" wear spectacles for near and distance than patients with monofocal IOLs (at t3, 42.7% multifocal vs. 21.6% monofocal for near [P = 0.002] and 75.0% multifocal vs. 46.2% monofocal for distance [P = 0.001]). On a 0- to 15-point scale, monofocal IOL patients showed fewer complaints from cataract symptoms, including halos and distorted vision, at t3 (1.2 monofocal vs. 2.1 multifocal [P = 0.002]). Satisfaction related to preoperative expectations was similar in the monofocal and multifocal groups. The perceived quality of corrected near vision had the strongest relationship with patient satisfaction (beta = 0.22; 95% confidence interval: 0.060-0.523). Sociodemographics, ESI, and neuroticism did not predict patient satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, patient satisfaction did not differ between the groups of monofocal and multifocal IOLs. Independent of ESI or neuroticism scores, success of both IOLs depends on preoperative expectations and postoperative quality of aided near vision. This article contains additional online-only material available at .

Refractive outcomes after bilateral multifocal intraocular lens implantation

PURPOSE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of bilateral multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) implantation after cataract surgery.

SETTING

Oftalmológico de Valencia-CEOVAL, Valencia, Venezuela.

METHODS

This retrospective study evaluated patient charts for the patient selection method, preoperative evaluation, surgical technique, postoperative visual and refractive outcomes, and complications. It included 70 eyes of 35 patients who had lens extraction with bilateral implantation of an Array multifocal IOL. Fourteen eyes of 7 patients had hyperopia with presbyopia, and 56 eyes of 28 patients had cataract.

RESULTS

All eyes achieved an uncorrected distance acuity of 20/40 or better and an uncorrected near acuity of J5 or better. Six patients (18%) reported moderate halos, and 22 patients (63%) occasionally wore glasses.

CONCLUSION

Bilateral multifocal IOL implantation was effective and safe in cataract and hyperopic patients with presbyopia, providing good uncorrected distance and near acuities.