A Canadian Cost-Utility Analysis of 2 Trabecular Microbypass Stents at Time of Cataract Surgery in Patients with Mild to Moderate Open-Angle Glaucoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess, from the Canadian public payer perspective, the cost-utility of implanting iStent Inject trabecular bypass stent (TBS) devices in conjunction with cataract surgery versus cataract surgery alone in patients with open-angle glaucoma (OAG) and visually significant cataract. DESIGN: Cost-utility analysis using efficacy and safety results of pivotal randomized clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: Modeled cohort of patients with OAG (83.1% with mild disease, 16.9% with moderate disease) and visually significant cataract. METHODS: Open-angle glaucoma treatment costs and effects were projected over a 15-year time horizon using a Markov model with Hodapp-Parrish-Anderson glaucoma stages (mild, moderate, advanced, severe or blind) and death as health states. Patients in the mild or moderate OAG health states received implantation of iStent Inject during cataract surgery versus cataract surgery alone. On worsening of visual field defect and optic disc damage, patients could receive selective laser trabeculoplasty and trabeculectomy. We measured treatment effect as reduction in intraocular pressure (IOP) and mean medication use and estimated transition probabilities based on efficacy-adjusted visual field mean deviation decline per month. Healthcare resource utilization and utility scores were obtained from the literature. Cost inputs (2017 Canadian dollars [C$]) were derived using the Ontario Health Insurance Plan, expert opinion, medication claims datasets, and Ontario Drug Benefit Formulary medication consumption costs. We conducted deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to examine the impact of alternative model input values on results. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. RESULTS: Compared with cataract surgery alone, TBS plus cataract surgery showed a 99% probability of being more effective (+0.023 QALYs; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.004 to 0.044) and a 73.7% probability of being cost-saving (net cost, -C$389.00; 95% CI, -C$1712.00 to C$850.70). In 95% of all simulations, TBS plus cataract surgery showed a cost per QALY of C$62 366 or less. Results were robust in additional sensitivity and scenario analyses. CONCLUSIONS: iStent Inject TBS implantation during cataract surgery seems to be cost effective for reducing IOP in patients with mild to moderate OAG versus cataract surgery alone.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".