A United States cost–benefit comparison of an apodized, diffractive, presbyopia-correcting, multifocal intraocular lens and a conventional monofocal lens

Purpose

To demonstrate the value, from the patient's perspective, of an apodized, diffractive, presbyopia-correcting multifocal intraocular lens (MF-IOL) compared to a conventional monofocal intraocular lens (CM-IOL).

Setting

Open-label, multi-site U.S. clinical trial.

Methods

A cost–benefit analysis was conducted using cataract patients' willingness-to-pay (WTP) for spectacle independence as the measure of economic benefit. WTP was elicited from participants in a clinical trial comparing a MF-IOL and a CM-IOL. Costs borne by patients were obtained from standard reference sources. A 14-year analytical timeframe was used, and a 3% annual discount rate was applied to both costs and benefits. The outcome of interest was net benefit (difference between benefits and costs). A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was used to confirm the robustness of the economic results.

Results

Four hundred ninety-five patients provided WTP estimates for spectacle independence (MF-IOL, n = 339; CM-IOL, n = 156). Eighty percent of all patients were willing to pay at least $5 per day to be spectacle independent. The incremental acquisition cost associated with bilateral implantation of 2 MF-IOLs was estimated at $4,000. Eighty percent in the MF-IOL group and 8% in the CM-IOL group reported post-operative spectacle independence. The net benefit was $11,670 in the MF-IOL group and $155 in the CM-IOL group. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the economic outcomes.

Conclusion

The net benefit of the MF-IOL exceeded its acquisition cost and the net benefit of the CM-IOL, demonstrating its value to select cataract patients willing to pay a premium for spectacle independence.