Economic analysis of the Ex-PRESS miniature glaucoma device versus trabeculectomy

Journal of Glaucoma

Volumn 23, Issue 6, 2014, Pages 385-390

  Patel, Hussain Y ^a   Wagschal, Lilach Drori ^a   Trope, Graham E ^a   Buys, Yvonne M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

analysis; cost; economic; Ex PRESS; trabeculectomy

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BOOTSTRAPPING; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; GLAUCOMA; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HUMAN; MALE; NONVALVED OPHTHALMIC DRAINAGE DEVICE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; TRABECULECTOMY; ADOLESCENT; AGED; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DRUG COST; ECONOMICS; GLAUCOMA DRAINAGE IMPLANT; GLAUCOMA, OPEN-ANGLE; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; MIDDLE AGED; OCULOPLETHYSMOGRAPHY; PHYSIOLOGY; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VERY ELDERLY;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DRUG COSTS; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; GLAUCOMA DRAINAGE IMPLANTS; GLAUCOMA, OPEN-ANGLE; HUMANS; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; TONOMETRY, OCULAR; TRABECULECTOMY; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84905491277     PISSN: 10570829     EISSN: 1536481X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0b013e31827a06f4     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Kaplan-Messas A, Traverso CE, Glovinsky Y, et al. the International ExPRESS Study Group. The ExPRESS miniature glaucoma implant: intermediate result a prospective multi-center study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2001;42: S55-S62.
2. Wamsley S, Moster MR, Rai S, et al. Results of the use of the Ex-PRESS miniature glaucoma implant in technically challenging, advanced glaucoma cases: a clinical pilot study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2004;138:1049-1051.
3. Wamsley S, Moster MR, Rai S, et al. Optonol Ex-PRESS miniature tube shunt in advanced glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004;45:994A.
4. Stewart RM, Diamond JG, Ashmore ED, et al. Complications following ExPRESS glaucoma shunt implantation. Am J Ophthalmol. 2005;140:340-341.
5. Dahan E, Carmichael TR. Implantation of a miniature glaucoma device under a scleral flap. J Glaucoma. 2005;14: 98-102.
6. Maris PJ, Ishida K, Netland PA. Comparison of trabeculectomy with Ex-PRESS miniature glaucoma device implanted under a scleral flap. J Glaucoma. 2007;16:14-19.
7. De Jong LA. The Ex-PRESS glaucoma shunt vs trabeculectomy in open angle glaucoma: a prospective randomized study. Adv Ther. 2009;26:336-345.
8. Filippopoulos T, Rhee DJ. Novel surgical procedures in glaucoma: advances in penetrating glaucoma surgery. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2008;19:149-154.
9. Good TJ, Kahook MY. Assessment of bleb morphologic features and postoperative outcomes after Ex-PRESS drainage device implantation versus trabeculectomy. Am J Ophthalmol. 2011;151:507-513.
10. Sugiyama T, Shibata M, Kojita S, et al. The first report on intermediate-term outcome of Ex-PRESS glaucoma filtration device implanted under a scleral flap in Japanese patients. Clin Ophthalmol. 2011;5:1063-1066.
11. Seider MI, Rofangha S, Lin SC. Resident-performed Ex- PRESS shunt implantation versus trabeculectomy. J Glaucoma. 2012;21:469-474.
12. De Jong LA, Lafuna A, Aguade AS, et al. Five year extension of a clinical trial comparing the Ex-PRESS glaucoma filtration device and trabeculectomy in primary open angle glaucoma. Clin Ophthalmol. 2011;5:527-533.
13. Kymes S, Azuara-Blanco A. Guidelines for economic evaluation of glaucoma surgical trials. In: Shaarawy TM, Sherwood MB, Grehn F, eds. World Glaucoma Association: Guidelines on Design and Reporting of Glaucoma Surgical Trials. Amsterdam: Kugler Publications; 2009:41-46.
14. Ministry of Health and Long Term Care. Ontario Health Insurance Plan. Toronto: Ministry of Health and Long Term Care; 2009.
15. Lachaine J, Hodge WG, Steffensen I, et al. Prostaglandin analogues for ophthalmic use: a cost effective analysis. Can J Ophthalmol. 2008;43:33-41.
16. Fiscella RG, Green A, Patuszynski DH, et al. Medical therapy cost considerations for glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 2003;136: 18-25.
17. Rylander NR, Vold SD. Cost analysis of glaucoma medications. Am J Ophthalmol. 2008;145:106-113.
18. Watanabe SL, Morreale AP, Zelman LA. Quantity and cost of commonly used ophthalmic solutions at a Veterans Affairs health system. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2004;61:612-616.
19. Ministry of Health and Long Term Care. Ontario drug benefit formulary/comparative drug index (database online) (edition 41). Toronto: Ministry of Health and Long Term Care; 2008.
20. Van Hout BA, Al M, Gordon GS, et al. Costs, effects and C/Eratios alongside a clinical trial. Health Econ. 1994;3:309-319.
21. Briggs AH, Wonderling DE, Mooney CZ. Pulling cost-effectiveness analysis up by its bootstraps; a non-parametric approach to confidence interval estimation. Health Econ. 1997;6:327-340.
22. Barrett B, Byford S. Acceptable mental health care? A new decision-making tool for cost-effectiveness analysis. Mental Health Res Rev. 2003;9:39-41.
23. Willan AR, Briggs AH. Statistical Analysis of Cost-effectiveness Data. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2006.
24. Fenwick E, Byford S. A guide to cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Br J Psychiatry. 2005;187:106-108.
25. Laupacis A, Feeny D, Detsky AS, et al. How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. Can Med Assoc J. 1992;146:473-481.