Economic Evaluation of Endothelial Keratoplasty Techniques and Penetrating Keratoplasty in The Netherlands

PURPOSE: To evaluate cost-effectiveness of penetrating keratoplasty (PK), femtosecond laser-assisted Descemet stripping endothelial keratoplasty (FS-DSEK), and Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK). DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis based on data from a randomized multicenter clinical trial and a noncomparative prospective study. METHODS: Data of 118 patients with corneal endothelial dysfunction were analyzed in the economic evaluation. Forty patients were included in the PK group, 36 in the FS-DSEK group, and 42 in the DSAEK group. The primary incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was the incremental costs per clinically improved patient, defined as a patient with a combined effectiveness of both a clinically improved BSCVA (defined as an improvement of at least 2 lines) and a clinically acceptable refractive astigmatism (defined as less than or equal to 3.0 diopters). Analysis was based on a 1-year follow-up period after transplantation. RESULTS: The percentage of treated patients who met the combined effectiveness measures was 52% for DSAEK, 44% for PK, and 43% for FS-DSEK. Mean total costs per patient were 6674 (US$7942), (sic)12 443 (US$14 807), and (sic)7072 (US$8416) in the PK group, FS-DSEK group, and DSAEK group, respectively. FSDSEK was less effective and more costly compared to both DSAEK and PK. DSAEK was more costly but also more effective compared to PK, resulting in incremental costs of (sic)4975 (US$5920) per additional clinically improved patient. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study show that FS-DSEK was not cost-effective compared to PK and DSAEK. DSAEK, on the other hand, was more costly but also more effective compared to PK. Including societal costs, a longer follow-up period and preparation of the lamellar transplant buttons in a national cornea bank could improve the cost-effectiveness of DSAEK. (Am J Ophthalmol 2012;154:272-281.