Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27425822›Full record

ArticleOphthalmology2016

Cost Evaluation of Panretinal Photocoagulation versus Intravitreal Ranibizumab for Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy.

James Lin, Jonathan S Chang, William E Smiddy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ophthalmology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 59 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

James LinDepartment of Ophthalmology, Harkness Eye Institute, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, New York.
Jonathan S ChangDepartment of Ophthalmology, Harkness Eye Institute, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, New York. Electronic address: jsc2101@cumc.columbia.edu.
William E SmiddyBascom Palmer Eye Institute, Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, Florida.
Columbia University · USUniversity of Miami · US

Funding

Instrumentation, Fabrication, and Design CoreP30EY019007 · NEI · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI Xin Zhang · 2010 to 2026
$12.9M
NEI NIH HHS P30 EY019007
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate costs of panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) vs. intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) for proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR).

designA Markov-style model of cost-effectiveness and cost utility.

participantsThere were no participants.

methodsBased on results from Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research (DRCR) Network Protocol S, we performed a Markov-style analysis to generate the total 2-year costs for each treatment arm. The cost per line-year saved and cost utility were calculated based on the estimated life years remaining. Both treatment arms were assumed to result in 9 lines of vision saved in 20% of patients. Medicare reimbursement data were acquired to determine costs, which were then separately calculated for practice settings of a hospital-based facility as the highest end of the cost range and a nonfacility in the same geographic area as the lowest end. Cost parameters for a prototypical patient's life expectancy also were modeled and calculated.

main outcome measuresInputed cost of therapy, cost per line saved, cost per line-year saved, and cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALY).

resultsWhen PRP was the primary treatment, the 2-year cost in the facility setting was $13 053, with cost per line saved $7252, cost per line-year $240, and cost per QALY $7988. In the nonfacility setting costs were approximately 21% lower. When IVR was the primary treatment, the 2-year cost in the facility setting was $30 328, cost per line saved was $16 849, cost per line-year $575, and cost per QALY $19 150. In the nonfacility setting costs were approximately 15% lower. Extrapolation to lifetime therapy yielded the cost per QALY with PRP treatment of $14 219 to $24 005 and with IVR of $138 852 to $164 360. Cost utility for PRP would be 85% lower than IVR in the facility setting and 90% lower than IVR in the nonfacility setting.

conclusionsPRP compared with IVR as primary treatment for PDR is less expensive over 2 years, but both fall well below the accepted cost per QALY upper limit. However, over an average lifetime, the cost differential between PRP and IVR increases, and IVR therapy may exceed the typical accepted limit of cost per QALY.

Indexed as

Health Care CostsAngiogenesis InhibitorsCost-Benefit AnalysisDiabetic RetinopathyHumansIntravitreal InjectionsLaser CoagulationModels, EconomicQuality-Adjusted Life YearsRanibizumabVisual AcuityAngiogenesis InhibitorsRanibizumab

Identifiers

PMID27425822
PMCPMC4995116
OpenAlexW2504943053

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.