视网膜下黄斑出血替代治疗策略的成本效益
Cost-Effectiveness of Alternative Treatment Strategies of Subretinal Macular Hemorrhage.
作者信息
Confalonieri Filippo, Hertzberg Silvia N W, Dziedzic Krystian Andrzej, Lumi Xhevat, Lytvynchuk Lyubomyr, Znaor Ljubo, Petrovski Goran, Petrovski Beáta Éva
机构信息
Department of Ophthalmology, Montecchi Hospital of Suzzara, via Generale Cantore 14/B, 46029 Suzzara, Italy.
Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, 20072 Milan, Italy.
出版信息
Healthcare (Basel). 2025 Jun 29;13(13):1550. doi: 10.3390/healthcare13131550.
To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of alternative treatment strategies for subretinal macular hemorrhage (SRMH), a condition often associated with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and other retinal vascular disorders, leading to severe visual impairment. A retrospective cross-sectional study conducted at Oslo University Hospital assessed the cost and utility of various SRMH treatment modalities. These included intravitreal anti-VEGF monotherapy, intravitreal tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) with gas displacement (alone and in combination with anti-VEGF), and pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) with subretinal tPA and gas displacement (with and without anti-VEGF). Costs were analyzed from a healthcare perspective, encompassing direct and indirect costs. Effectiveness was measured using median best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) improvements. Sensitivity analyses were performed to account for complications and variations in follow-up. Anti-VEGF monotherapy was the most cost-effective treatment, with the lowest cost per unit of BCVA improvement (NOK 44,717) in outpatient settings. Intravitreal tPA with gas displacement emerged as a cost-effective alternative but exhibited higher costs when combined with anti-VEGF or performed as an inpatient procedure. PPV with subretinal tPA and gas displacement, with or without anti-VEGF, was the least cost-effective modality, particularly in inpatient settings. Sensitivity analyses indicated that anti-VEGF therapy remained cost-effective even with increased follow-up requirements and complications, while tPA-based therapies required significant BCVA improvements to match anti-VEGF's cost-utility. Outpatient intravitreal anti-VEGF monotherapy followed by tPA with gas displacement are the most cost-effective strategies for SRMH management. Subretinal tPA-based treatments are associated with higher costs and limited economic viability, highlighting the importance of tailored treatment selection. These findings support strategic resource allocation in managing SRMH while optimizing patient outcomes.
为评估视网膜黄斑下出血(SRMH)替代治疗策略的成本效益,SRMH常与新生血管性年龄相关性黄斑变性(AMD)及其他视网膜血管疾病相关,可导致严重视力损害。在奥斯陆大学医院进行的一项回顾性横断面研究评估了各种SRMH治疗方式的成本和效用。这些治疗方式包括玻璃体内抗VEGF单药治疗、玻璃体内组织纤溶酶原激活剂(tPA)联合气体置换(单独使用及与抗VEGF联合使用),以及经平坦部玻璃体切除术(PPV)联合视网膜下tPA和气体置换(使用和不使用抗VEGF)。从医疗保健角度分析成本,包括直接成本和间接成本。使用最佳矫正视力(BCVA)改善中位数来衡量疗效。进行敏感性分析以考虑并发症和随访差异。抗VEGF单药治疗是最具成本效益的治疗方法,在门诊环境中每改善一个单位BCVA的成本最低(44,717挪威克朗)。玻璃体内tPA联合气体置换是一种具有成本效益的替代方法,但与抗VEGF联合使用或作为住院手术时成本较高。PPV联合视网膜下tPA和气体置换,无论是否使用抗VEGF,都是成本效益最低的方式,尤其是在住院环境中。敏感性分析表明,即使随访要求增加和出现并发症,抗VEGF治疗仍具有成本效益,而基于tPA的治疗需要BCVA有显著改善才能与抗VEGF的成本效用相匹配。门诊玻璃体内抗VEGF单药治疗后联合tPA和气体置换是SRMH管理中最具成本效益的策略。基于视网膜下tPA的治疗成本较高且经济可行性有限,凸显了选择合适治疗方法的重要性。这些研究结果支持在管理SRMH时进行战略资源分配,同时优化患者预后。