BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to provide an updated assessment of cost-efficacy of intravitreal ocriplasmin (IVO) for vitreomacular adhesion (VMA) and macular holes (MH).
patients AND METHODS: This was a single-center, multiple-physician, institutional review board-approved, retrospective, 15-month cost-effectiveness analysis study (January 2015 to April 2016). Clinical charts and billing records of 247 patients with VMA and MH were reviewed. patients were divided into group 1 (VMA and MH treated by pars plana vitrectomy [PPV]), group 2 (VMA and MH treated by IVO), and group 3 (VMA treated by IVO). Success rates of interventions in each group were compared, including cost-effectiveness, cost per line-year, and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY).
RESULTS: Success rates for initial intervention were 98% in group 1, 55.6% in group 2, and 67.7% in group 3. Cost of PPV at our institution was $6,538.00 and cost of IVO (2016) was $3,480.00. Using a cohort-based computer Markov model, the treatment decision tree demonstrated group 1 was less cost-effective, with cost per line of $2,654.39, cost per line-year saved of $185.62, and cost per QALY of $6,187.00. Group 2 was cost-effective with cost per line of $2,456.25, cost per line-year saved of $171.77, and cost per QALY of $5,726.00. The difference in cost-effectiveness showed IVO was more cost-effective than PPV, with a difference in cost per line of $198.14, cost per line-year saved of $13.85, and cost per QALY of $461.00.
CONCLUSIONS: IVO is a more cost-effective intervention than vitrectomy for the treatment of VMA and MH in the setting of judicious use in appropriate patients. The success rate of IVO in our patient population was greater than currently published rates and most certainly impacted probability of cost-efficacy. Further research targeting optimizing IVO success rate is needed. [Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2018;49:e240-e248.].
