Retrospective cost-utility analysis shows T&I provides better cost effectiveness for endophthalmitis, suggesting new treatment guidelines.
Purpose: To perform a cost-utility analysis comparing primary pars-plana vitrectomy (PPV) within 24 hours with primary nonsurgical vitreous tap (or tap and inject [T&I]) for the management of endophthalmitis. Methods: Retrospective cost-utility analysis using decision tree modeling. The Victorian Endophthalmitis Registry was used to model outcome probabilities and costs from a third-party payer perspective. Australian Medicare data were used to calculate costs in a hospital-based setting (Australian dollars [A$]). Cost utility was based on preserved visual acuity and cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Results: The authors identified 206 eyes treated between January 1, 2011, and January 1, 2021; 36 eyes received PPV, and 170 eyes received T&I. Seventeen eyes in the T&I group required delayed PPV. Mean incident ages were 76.29 years (53% female) in the PPV group and 74.28 years (55% female) in the T&I group. Imputed costs were A$1,523 and A$310 for PPV and T&I, with additional per-night admission costs of A$1,177. The mean presenting vs discharge logMAR of endophthalmitis was 2.24 vs 1.25 for the PPV group and 1.88 vs 1.03 for the T&I group. The mean durations of admission were 4.33 nights (PPV) and 4.04 nights (T&I). Total calculated costs per admission were A$6,929.41 and A$5,065.08 for PPV and T&I, respectively. Estimated lifetime QALYs gained were 2.23 (PPV) and 2.45 (T&I). The final costs derived per QALY were A$3,107 (PPV) and A$2,067 (T&I). Conclusions: PPV and T&I are both cost-effective per gained QALY, though the latter provided superior cost utility. A prospective randomized trial is indicated as the 2 groups differed at baseline, with eyes receiving vitrectomy having worse presenting visual acuity and prognosis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yan et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: