Advancing the Economic Assessment of Microinvasive Glaucoma Surgery
J. Isenberg,A. Sheybani,I. Ahmed
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0000000000000414
2016-07-01
Journal of Glaucoma
Abstract:To the Editor: Glaucoma management has evolved significantly in the past 15 years with the development of many new and less invasive surgical techniques known collectively as microinvasive glaucoma surgery (MIGS). MIGS offers a reduction in the intraocular pressure (IOP), a decrease in the dependence on topical medications, and an excellent safety profile when compared with more invasive procedures.1,2 They represent a departure from the traditional treatment algorithm, particularly for patients with mild to moderate glaucoma. Indications are therefore different from those of patients with advanced disease and those who require a much lower postoperative IOP. With emerging data, existing models used for glaucoma care should be applied to assess the cost-effectiveness and the quality-oflife impact of MIGS.3–6 In the August 2013 issues of Glaucoma, Iordanous et al7 presented the economic study of MIGS compared with topical medication. They evaluated direct costs of therapy over 6 years and concluded that MIGS offers a modest potential cost savings. The authors should be commended for addressing this important issue; however, even in the broadest sense, we should not interpret the finding of “modest cost saving” as sufficient evidence to either support or reject the economic feasibility of MIGS in general (or for a particular device under study) because cost-analysis studies cannot be used to compare 2 interventions with different outcome timelines. Several international retrospective chart reviews have addressed the economic burden of the management of glaucoma by studying direct costs.8–11 These studies examined the direct costs of diagnostic tests, surgical procedures, and medication use collected from chart reviews. In a 2012 cost-effectiveness study comparing trabeculectomy with canaloplasty, authors reported costs associated with several factors: the duration of hospitalization, the duration of surgery, surgical complications and interventions, and outcomes in pre operative and postoperative IOP within the first 6 months after operation.12 The scenarios Iordanous and colleagues presented follow the methods of Lee and Hutnik13 and include direct costs of 3 procedures—trabectome, iStent, and endoscopic cyclophotocoagulation—compared with monodrug, bi-drug, and tri-drug therapy. Data were presented with linear cost projections over 6 years. These comparisons assume the following: that there is no difference in the quality of life, no secondary effects or changes in the follow-up related to the choice of therapy, no surgeons’ fees, and no surgical platform acquisition and maintenance costs, and no change in the drug pricing. This likely resulted in an underestimation of the costs of MIGS and topical medication, while overestimating the efficacy and the safety of the latter. In an editorial response to Lee and Hutnik, Buys14 outlined several implicit assumptions made by that model. These assumptions were that the reduction in IOP with surgery is equivalent to 1, 2, or 3 glaucoma medications, that surgery is 100% successful, and that the effects of surgery last a minimum of 6 years, with no retreatment and no complications. As Iordanous and colleagues themselves discuss, their assumptions and the exclusion of differences in the quality of life, secondary effects, and changes in the follow-up related to the choice of therapy, surgeon fees, and surgical platform costs likely have significant and highly variable effects on the cost and likely their study’s results. Direct costs represent the value of all goods, services, and other resources consumed in providing health care. They also represent the direct costs in dealing with side effects, adverse events, or other consequences of health care.15 When considering MIGS, the upfront cost and the quality-of-life impact of the procedures should be justified from the perspective of patients affected by these surgeries and agencies or governments covering their costs.1 We therefore believe that it was not realistic for Iordanous and colleagues to exclude inputs from their direct health care cost-analysis model such as the surgeon’s fees, the OR time, nursing and technical support, as well as financial discounting, postsurgical care, and doctor follow-up fees. These inputs can be estimated accurately when financial assumptions are made querying publicly available unit costs associated with diagnostic tests, surgical procedures, and medication data abstracted from the charts and with the help of health economists. As these arguments attest, the economics in health care delivery are complex. The bottom line to which all can agree is that physicians cannot ignore the financial implications of therapeutic decisions when treating patients. Iordanous and colleagues showed tremendous leadership in demonstrating the need to control quality and cost. There is a great need for guidelines regarding economic assessments in ophthalmology and more specifically for glaucoma. Future models should incorporate the impact on the quality of life related to perioperative care, the potential change in the need for glaucoma medications, the timing of further glaucoma surgery, and visual function outcomes. This would improve the quality of financial analysis available with a positive impact for our patients, colleagues, industry collaborators, and policy makers.