INTRODUCTION: Although cataract surgery has been demonstrated to be effective and cost-effective, 5% to 20% of patients do not benefit functionally from the procedure. This study examines the cost-effectiveness of cataract surgery versus watchful waiting in a subgroup of patients who had less than a 30% predicted probability of reporting improvements in visual function after surgery. METHODS: Randomized trial (first eye surgery vs. watchful waiting) of 250 patients who based on a cataract surgery index (CSI) were felt to have less than a 30% probability of reporting improvements in visual functioning after surgery. Cost was estimated using monthly resource utilization surveys and Medicare billing and payment data. Effectiveness was evaluated at 6 months using the Activities of Daily Vision Scale (ADVS) and the Health Utilities Index, Mark 3 (HUI3). RESULTS: In terms of overall utility, the incremental cost-effectiveness of surgery was Dollars 38,288/QALY. In the subgroup of patients with a CSI score > 11 (< 20% probability of improvement), the cost-effectiveness of cataract surgery was Dollars 53,500/QALY. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that often this population of patients may not derive a utility benefit with surgery. CONCLUSION: Cataract surgery is cost-effective even in a subpopulation of patient with a lower, < 30%, predicted probability of reporting improved visual functioning after surgery. There may be a subgroup of patients, CSI > 11, for whom a strategy of watchful waiting may be equally effective and considerably less expensive.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Naeim et al. (2006) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: