Cost-effectiveness of internal limiting membrane peeling versus no peeling for patients with an idiopathic full-thickness macular hole : results from a randomised controlled trial
MetadataShow full item record
Aim To determine whether internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling is cost-effective compared with no peeling for patients with an idiopathic stage 2 or 3 full-thickness macular hole. Methods A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed alongside a randomised controlled trial. 141 participants were randomly allocated to receive macular-hole surgery, with either ILM peeling or no peeling. Health-service resource use, costs and quality of life were calculated for each participant. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained was calculated at 6 months. Results At 6 months, the total costs were on average higher (424 pound, 95% CI -182 to 1045) in the No Peel arm, primarily owing to the higher reoperation rate in the No Peel arm. The mean additional QALYs from ILM peel at 6 months were 0.002 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.013), adjusting for baseline EQ-5D and other minimisation factors. A mean incremental cost per QALY was not computed, as Peeling was on average less costly and slightly more effective. A stochastic analysis suggested that there was more than a 90% probability that Peeling would be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of 20 pound 000 per QALY. Conclusion Although there is no evidence of a statistically significant difference in either costs or QALYs between macular hole surgery with or without ILM peeling, the balance of probabilities is that ILM Peeling is likely to be a cost-effective option for the treatment of macular holes. Further long-term follow-up data are needed to confirm these findings.
Ternent , L , Vale , L , Boachie , C , Burr , J M , Lois , N & Full-Thickness Macular Hole 2012 , ' Cost-effectiveness of internal limiting membrane peeling versus no peeling for patients with an idiopathic full-thickness macular hole : results from a randomised controlled trial ' British Journal of Ophthalmology , vol 96 , no. 3 , pp. 438-443 . DOI: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2011-300402
British Journal of Ophthalmology
This is the author's version of an article published in British Journal of Ophthalmology. The published version is available from http://bjo.bmj.com/content/96/3/438
DescriptionThis work is supported by funding from the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health Directorates
Items in the St Andrews Research Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.