Global Search

Search articles, concepts, and chapters

Am J OphthalmolApril 20240 citations

Cost-Utility Analysis of Prophylactic Laser Peripheral Iridotomy for Primary Angle Closure Suspects.

Rothman Adam L, Gibbons Allister


AI Summary

Prophylactic LPI for primary angle closure suspects is cost-effective across most ages, suggesting its public health benefit in preventing glaucoma.

Abstract

Purpose

To assess the cost-utility of prophylactic laser peripheral iridotomy (LPI) for primary angle closure (PAC) suspects (PACS).

Design

Economic evaluation.

Methods

Our Markov model randomized PACS eyes to LPI or observation for 40 one-year cycles (100,000 iterations per strategy). Each cycle, an eye remained in its current health state, advanced linearly through PAC, mild, moderate, severe, and end-stage PAC glaucoma (PACG), or died. Transition rates were derived from the literature including the Zhongshan Angle Closure Prevention (ZAP) trial and the Singapore Asymptomatic Narrow Angles Laser Iridotomy Study (ANA-LIS). Eyes with acute-angle closure advanced to either PAC or directly to various PACG severities. A tracker monitored accumulated perimetric decibel reduction to progress PACG through increasing severities, with an annual probability of either stable or severity-dependent perimetry loss. We set a willingness to pay of an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) <$50,000/quality-adjusted life-years.

Results

At age 50 years, LPI was cost-saving using ZAP data and cost-effective using ANA-LIS data. The ZAP iterations became cost-effective from the societal perspective when the model started at age 55 years and third-party perspective at age 70 years. LPI was no longer cost-effective from the societal perspective using ANA-LIS data at age 80 years or from the societal perspective using ZAP data or third-party perspective with ANA-LIS data at age 85. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses favored LPI until starting age 85.

Conclusions

Prophylactic LPI for PACS is cost-effective across a spectrum of ages and should be considered from a public health perspective.


MeSH Terms

Glaucoma, Angle-ClosureHumansCost-Benefit AnalysisIridectomyQuality-Adjusted Life YearsIntraocular PressureLaser TherapyIrisMarkov ChainsAgedFemaleMaleMiddle AgedProphylactic Surgical ProceduresHealth Care CostsLasers, Solid-StateVisual Field TestsGonioscopy

Key Concepts5

Prophylactic laser peripheral iridotomy (LPI) for primary angle closure (PAC) suspects (PACS) was cost-saving at age 50 years when using data from the Zhongshan Angle Closure Prevention (ZAP) trial.

Comparative EffectivenessCohortEconomic evaluation (Markov model)n=100,000 iterations per strategyCh10Ch13Ch38

Prophylactic laser peripheral iridotomy (LPI) for primary angle closure (PAC) suspects (PACS) was cost-effective at age 50 years when using data from the Singapore Asymptomatic Narrow Angles Laser Iridotomy Study (ANA-LIS).

Comparative EffectivenessCohortEconomic evaluation (Markov model)n=100,000 iterations per strategyCh10Ch13Ch38

Prophylactic laser peripheral iridotomy (LPI) for primary angle closure (PAC) suspects (PACS) was cost-effective from the societal perspective when the model started at age 55 years, and from the third-party perspective at age 70 years, using Zhongshan Angle Closure Prevention (ZAP) trial data.

Comparative EffectivenessCohortEconomic evaluation (Markov model)n=100,000 iterations per strategyCh10Ch13Ch38

Prophylactic laser peripheral iridotomy (LPI) for primary angle closure (PAC) suspects (PACS) was no longer cost-effective from the societal perspective using ANA-LIS data at age 80 years, or from the societal perspective using ZAP data or third-party perspective with ANA-LIS data at age 85.

Comparative EffectivenessCohortEconomic evaluation (Markov model)n=100,000 iterations per strategyCh10Ch13Ch38

Probabilistic sensitivity analyses favored prophylactic laser peripheral iridotomy (LPI) for primary angle closure (PAC) suspects (PACS) until a starting age of 85 years.

Comparative EffectivenessCohortEconomic evaluation (Markov model)n=100,000 iterations per strategyCh10Ch13Ch38

Is this article assigned to the wrong chapter(s)? Let us know.