Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Digital Therapeutics for Amblyopia
Irene Koc1, Saghar Bagheri2, Rachel K Chau3
1Department of Ophthalmology, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Boston, Massachusetts; Department of Ophthalmology, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey.
Ophthalmology
|January 5, 2025
Summary
New amblyopia therapies Luminopia and CureSight are cost-effective compared to traditional treatments like patching and atropine drops. These options offer viable alternatives, particularly for patients intolerant to conventional amblyopic therapies.
Area of Science:
- Ophthalmology
- Health Economics
Background:
- Amblyopia, or "lazy eye," affects visual development and is commonly treated with patching, atropine drops, or glasses.
- Newer therapies like Luminopia and CureSight offer potential advancements in amblyopia treatment.
Purpose of the Study:
- To conduct a cost-utility analysis comparing Luminopia and CureSight with standard amblyopia treatments.
- To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of these novel therapies against glasses, atropine, and patching.
Main Methods:
- Cost-utility analysis utilizing data from published randomized control trials (RCTs).
- Calculated costs included eye examinations, device expenses, and eyeglasses.
- Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were determined based on visual acuity (VA) gain and treatment duration.
Main Results:
- Patching and atropine demonstrated lower costs per QALY gained ($101 and $151, respectively) compared to Luminopia ($618).
- CureSight showed competitive cost-effectiveness, with costs per QALY ranging from $314 to $427.
- Both Luminopia and CureSight were found to be cost-effective relative to willingness-to-pay thresholds.
Conclusions:
- Luminopia and CureSight represent cost-effective treatment options for amblyopia.
- These therapies provide viable alternatives for patients who cannot tolerate patching or atropine.
- Cost-effectiveness based on visual acuity gain was comparable between Luminopia and CureSight.
