rss
Br J Ophthalmol 2004;88:982-987 doi:10.1136/bjo.2003.039131
  • Value based ophthalmology

Cost utility of photodynamic therapy for predominantly classic neovascular age related macular degeneration

  1. C Hopley1,
  2. G Salkeld2,
  3. P Mitchell1
  1. 1Centre for Vision Research, Department of Ophthalmology and the Westmead Millennium Institute, the University of Sydney, Australia
  2. 2School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
  1. Correspondence to: Professor Paul Mitchell University of Sydney Department of Ophthalmology, Westmead Hospital, Hawkesbury Road, Westmead, NSW, Australia, 2145;paul_mitchellwmi.usyd.edu.au
  • Revised 29 February 2004

Abstract

Background/aim: Age related macular degeneration (AMD) is the leading cause of severe vision impairment and blindness in older people throughout the developed world and currently affects around 420 000 UK citizens. Choroidal neovascularisation (CNV) is treatable with photodynamic therapy (PDT) but is expensive at over £1200 per treatment. The aim of this study was to assess the cost utility of PDT for better eye, predominantly classic, subfoveal choroidal neovascular lesions secondary to AMD.

Methods: Cost utility analysis (CUA) was conducted to estimate the cost effectiveness of PDT for scenarios involving reasonable (6/12) and poor (6/60) visual acuity. The models incorporated data from the Treatment of Age-related Macular Degeneration with PDT (TAP) Study and patient based utilities. The incremental CUA was based on decision analytical models, comparing treatment to a placebo comparator. Extensive one way sensitivity analysis of parameters was conducted to determine the robustness of the model. A discount rate of 6% was used for costs and quality adjusted life years (QALY).

Results: Model 1: in people with reasonable initial visual acuity, the cost utility of treating applicable neovascular AMD lesions was £31 607 per QALY saved, with a sensitivity analysis range from £25 285 to £37 928. Model 2: in people with poor initial visual acuity, the cost utility was £63 214 per QALY saved, with a sensitivity analysis range from £54 183 to £75 856.

Conclusions: PDT treatment is the only available treatment for some forms of neovascular (“wet”) AMD. Under these assumptions, PDT can be considered moderately cost effective for those with reasonable visual acuity but less cost effective for those with initial poor visual acuity. These findings have implications for ophthalmic practice and healthcare planning.

Footnotes

  • This study was supported by an initiating grant from the Westmead Millennium Institute, University of Sydney.

Register for free content

The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.

Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.