TY - JOUR
T1 - Cost-effectiveness of the anti-vascular endothelial growth factor intravitreal injection and panretinal photocoagulation for patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy in South Korea
AU - Lee, Hyeon Jeong
AU - Cho, Songhee
AU - Park, Jungeun
AU - Jin, Yan
AU - Kim, Hyung Min
AU - Jee, Donghyun
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2023, The Author(s).
PY - 2023/12
Y1 - 2023/12
N2 - Background: We determined the cost-effectiveness of the anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) intravitreal injection versus panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) for patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) in South Korea. Methods: We simulated four treatment strategies using PRP and the anti-VEGF injection by constructing a Markov model for a hypothetical cohort of 50-year-old PDR patients: (1) PRP only; (2) anti-VEGF injection only; (3) PRP first; and (4) anti-VEGF injection first. Results: In this cost-effectiveness analysis, compared with only-PRP, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $95,456 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for PRP first, $34,375 per QALY for anti-VEGF injection first, and $33,405 per QALY for anti-VEGF injection only from a healthcare perspective. From the societal and payer perspective, strategy (2) was more cost-saving and effective than (1). In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, only-PRP was cost-effective up to the willingness-to-pay (WTP) of about $42,000, while anti-VEGF injection only was cost-effective from a healthcare perspective. From the societal and payer perspectives, regardless of the value of WTP, anti-VEGF injection only was the most cost-effective strategy. Conclusion: In our study, the anti-VEGF injection for PDR was cost-effective from the payer and societal perspectives.
AB - Background: We determined the cost-effectiveness of the anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) intravitreal injection versus panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) for patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) in South Korea. Methods: We simulated four treatment strategies using PRP and the anti-VEGF injection by constructing a Markov model for a hypothetical cohort of 50-year-old PDR patients: (1) PRP only; (2) anti-VEGF injection only; (3) PRP first; and (4) anti-VEGF injection first. Results: In this cost-effectiveness analysis, compared with only-PRP, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $95,456 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for PRP first, $34,375 per QALY for anti-VEGF injection first, and $33,405 per QALY for anti-VEGF injection only from a healthcare perspective. From the societal and payer perspective, strategy (2) was more cost-saving and effective than (1). In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, only-PRP was cost-effective up to the willingness-to-pay (WTP) of about $42,000, while anti-VEGF injection only was cost-effective from a healthcare perspective. From the societal and payer perspectives, regardless of the value of WTP, anti-VEGF injection only was the most cost-effective strategy. Conclusion: In our study, the anti-VEGF injection for PDR was cost-effective from the payer and societal perspectives.
KW - Anti-VEGF injection
KW - Cost-effectiveness analysis
KW - Panretinal Photocoagulation
KW - Proliferative diabetic retinopathy
KW - South Korea
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85179330817&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1186/s12913-023-10280-6
DO - 10.1186/s12913-023-10280-6
M3 - Article
C2 - 38082399
AN - SCOPUS:85179330817
SN - 1472-6963
VL - 23
JO - BMC Health Services Research
JF - BMC Health Services Research
IS - 1
M1 - 1388
ER -