Search

Purpose: Ophthalmologists increasingly depend on new drugs to advance their treatment options. These options are limited by restraints on reimbursements for new and expensive drugs. These restraints are put in place through health policy decisions based on cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA). Cost-effectiveness analyses need to be valid and of good quality to support correct decisions to create new treatment opportunities. In this study, we report the quality, validity and usefulness of CEAs for therapies for nAMD., Methods: A systematic review in PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane was performed to include CEAs. Quality and validity assessment was based on current general quality criteria and on elements that are specific to the field of ophthalmology., Results: Forty-eight CEAs were included in the review. Forty-four CEAs did not meet four basic model quality and validity criteria specific to CEAs in the field of ophthalmology (both eyes analysed instead of one; a time horizon extending beyond 4 years; extrapolating VA and treatment intervals beyond trial data realistically; and including the costs of low-vision). Four CEAs aligned with the quality and validity criteria. In two of these CEAs bevacizumab as-needed (PRN) was more cost-effective than bevacizumab monthly; aflibercept (VIEW); or ranibizumab monthly or PRN. In two CEAs, ranibizumab (PRN or treat and extent) was dominant over aflibercept. In two other CEAs, aflibercept was either more cost-effective or dominant over ranibizumab monthly or PRN., Conclusion: Two of the CEAs of sufficient quality and validity show that bevacizumab PRN is the most cost-effective treatment. Comparing ranibizumab and aflibercept, either treatment can be more cost-effective depending on the assumptions used for drug prices and treatment frequencies. The majority of the published CEAs are of insufficient quality and validity. They wrongly inform decision-makers at the cost of opportunities for ophthalmologists to treat patients. As such, they may negatively influence overall patient outcomes and societal costs. For future ophthalmic treatments, CEAs need to be improved and only published when they are of sufficient quality and validity., (© 2018 Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica Foundation. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Hellen CS Römkens, Henny JM Beckers, Jan SAG Schouten, Tos TJM Berendschot, Carroll AB Webers Department of Ophthalmology, Maastricht University Medical Center+, Maastricht, the Netherlands Purpose: The aim of this study is to generate reference values for anterior chamber morphometrics to facilitate the interpretation of anterior chamber images acquired with swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT) in a Caucasian population.Materials and methods: Non-glaucomatous Caucasian subjects, who were newly referred to the outpatient department of the University Eye Clinic Maastricht UMC+, were asked to undergo anterior segment assessment with SS-OCT imaging prior to routine eye examination (including visual acuity and refractive error measurements, Goldmann applanation tonometry, slit lamp examination and funduscopy).Results: A total of 647 Caucasian subjects, aged 40–80 years, were included. Mean age (± standard deviation) was 61.7±10.3 years, and 294 were male (45%). Mean refractive error was -0.63±3.17 D. OCT images and measurements were obtained in all cases. The mean temporal trabecular iris angle at 500 µm (TIA500) was 27.04°±12.04°, the mean nasal TIA500 was 27.43°±11.75°, the mean anterior chamber depth (ACD) was 2.75±0.39 mm and the mean lens vault (LV) was 0.44±0.30 mm. A smaller temporal TIA500, shallower ACD and higher LV were found in female and hyperopic subjects.Conclusion: Reference values for anterior chamber morphometrics in Caucasians were generated, quantified and presented. These values offer tools for the interpretation of anterior segment images of Caucasians and differentiation between presumed mechanisms of angle closure. Keywords: reference value, anterior chamber, optical coherence tomography, Caucasian

P Mokhles, JSAG Schouten, HJM Beckers, CAB Webers University Eye Clinic Maastricht, Maastricht, the Netherlands Purpose: Blindness in glaucoma is difficult to assess with merely the use of the current World Health Organization (WHO) definition (a visual field restricted to 10° in a radius around central fixation), as this criterion does not cover other types of visual field loss that are encountered in clinical practice and also depict blindness. In this study, a 5-point ordinal scale was developed for the assessment of common visual field defect patterns, with the purpose of comparing blindness as outcome to the findings with the WHO criterion when applied to the same visual fields. The scores with the two methods were compared between two ophthalmologists. In addition, the variability between these assessors in assessing the different visual field types was determined.Methods: Two glaucoma specialists randomly assessed a sample of 423 visual fields from 77 glaucoma patients, stripped of all indices and masked for all patient variables. They applied the WHO criterion and a 5-point ordinal scale to all visual fields for the probability of blindness.Results: The WHO criterion was mostly found applicable and in good agreement for both assessors to visual fields depicting central island of vision or a temporal crescent. The percentage of blindness scores was higher when using the ordinal scale, 21.7% and 19.6% for assessors A and B, respectively, versus 14.4% and 11.3% for the WHO criterion. However, Kappa was lower, 0.71 versus 0.78 for WHO.Conclusions: The WHO criterion is strictly applied and shows good agreement between assessors; however, blindness does not always fit this criterion. More visual fields are labeled as blind when a less stringent criterion is used, but this leads to more interobserver variability. A new criterion that describes the extent, location, and depth of visual field defects together with their consequence for the patient’s quality of life is needed for the classification of glaucoma blindness. Keywords: glaucoma, blindness, visual fields, World Health Organization