Purpose: To evaluate the cost‐effectiveness of the triple procedure (phacovitrectomy + posterior capsulotomy, PhacoPPVc) compared to the double‐ (phacovitrectomy, PhacoPPV) or single sequential procedures.Methods: Prospective study on 31 eyes from 31 patients (mean age: 72.1 ± 9.1 years; 55% females) was performed with a preoperative decision to undergo only pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) (26%) or PhacoPPV (74%) and/or posterior capsulotomy based upon presence or absence of lens opacification or pseudophakia. Time during and between surgeries, surgical procedure codes, medical and transport costs, outcome and likelihood of complications after surgery were all included in the analysis. Societal perspectives and visual acuity were considered as measures of quality of adjusted life years (QALYs).Results: About 23 eyes underwent triple procedure and eight eyes underwent vitrectomy only (mean surgery times: 35.9 and 24.0 min, respectively). Posterior capsulotomy took on average 30 s, while preparation and cataract procedure took 13.0 min. The patients travelled on average 80km (average cost: $280.12) to the surgery unit. The average reimbursement fee for the day procedures ranged between $174.17 (YAG capsulotomy; Diagnosis Related Group (DRG): 0.034), $1045.48 (Phaco + intraocular lens (IOL); DRG: 0.204) and $1701.32 (PPV; DRG: 0.332). The combined procedures excluded lens and laser reimbursements, while the calculated reimbursements for the double/triple procedures were $2713.08/$2901.45, respectively, without significant loss of QALYs. PhacoPPVc was found to be unequivocally cost‐effective, while PhacoPPV remained cost saving compared to sequential procedures.Conclusion: This study confirms that the triple procedure has benefits to the patients, health institution and surgeon. For patients, it saves them travel and healing time; for health institution, it justifies the calculated higher costs and need for higher reimbursement for the double/triple procedures, which are cost saving.

This study aimed to examine the association between hypertension and tobacco use as well as other known hypertensive risk factors (BMI, waist–hip ratio, alcohol consumption, physical activity, and socio-economic factors among adults) in Kenya. The study utilized the 2015 Kenya STEPs survey (adults aged 18–69) and investigated the association between tobacco use and hypertension. Descriptive statistics, correlation, frequencies, and regression (linear and logistic) analyses were used to execute the statistical analysis. The study results indicate a high prevalence of hypertension in association with certain risk factors—body mass index (BMI), alcohol, waist–hip ratio (WHR), and tobacco use—that were higher in males than females among the hypertensive group. Moreover, the findings noted an exceptionally low awareness level of hypertension in the general population. BMI, age, WHR, and alcohol use were prevalent risks of all three outcomes: hypertension, systolic blood pressure, and diastolic blood pressure. Healthcare authorities and policymakers can employ these findings to lower the burden of hypertension by developing health promotion and intervention policies.

Purpose: To describe the trends in hospital utilization and economic outcomes associated with the transition from laser to intravitreal injection (IVI) therapy for diabetic retinopathy (DR) at Oslo University Hospital (OUH), which provides the largest retina service in Norway. Methods: This descriptive study analyzed hospital administrative data and determined the average utilization and treatment proportions of laser therapy, IVIs and vitrectomy for each patient per year. The Chi-square test was used to compare resource use between treatment groups. From an extended healthcare perspective, the annual cost per patient was calculated using Norwegian tariff data from 2020 and the National Medication Price Registry for patients seen between 2010 and 2018. Bootstrapping was performed to generate 95% confidence intervals for the cost per patient per year. Results: Among the 1838 (41% female) patients treated for DR between 2005 and 2018, OUH provided on average 1.09 laser treatments per DR patient and 0.54 vitrectomies per DR patient in 2005, whose utilization declined to 0.54 and 0.05 treatments per DR patient, respectively, by 2018. Laser treatments declined from 64% to 10%, while vitrectomies declined from 32% to 1%. In contrast, IVI treatments increased from 4.5% to 89% of the total share, representing an average increase, from 0.08 injections per patient in 2005 to 4.73 injections per patient in 2018. Both the increasing number of DR patients and the shift in the type of treatment increased the economic costs of treating DR from a total of EUR 0.605 million (EUR 2935 per patient) in 2010 to EUR 2.240 million (EUR 3665 per patient) in 2018, with IVIs contributing considerably to these costs. Conclusions: Despite the decline in the use of vitrectomies, the transition from laser to IVI therapy for DR increased the healthcare resource utilization and economic costs of its treatment over the observed time. A main cost driver was the need for long-term IVIs, in addition to the drug cost itself. Trade-offs can be achieved through effective alternative IVI delivery or appropriate drug choice that balances patient needs with the economic burden of treating DR.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to estimate the 1‐year costs associated with treating diabetic macular oedema (DME) patients using current intravitreal anti‐vascular endothelial growth factor (anti‐VEGF) biologics compared with the dexamethasone implant.Methods: We conducted a descriptive cost‐evaluation analysis using data from Oslo University Hospital and literature to compare three different intravitreal drugs forDME: bevacizumab, aflibercept and dexamethasone. Stratification of patients into ‘Naive’ or ‘Switch’ group was based on treatment history. We estimated the costs from healthcare and ‘extended’ healthcare perspectives. Sensitivity analysis evaluated the impact of various parameters.Results: The average injections per patient per year for the Naive group (bevacizumab), Switch group (aflibercept) and dexamethasone were 9.5, 9.1 and 3.0 respectively. From a healthcare perspective, the 1‐year costs for the Naive group were 15% lower (bevacizumab, €3619), and for the Switch group, 23% higher (aflibercept, €5226) compared with dexamethasone (€4252). The ‘extended’ healthcare perspective showed the cost per patient per year for bevacizumab remained nominally lower in the Naive group, while dexamethasone remained lower for the Switch group (€5116 for dexamethasone, compared to €4987 for bevacizumab and €6537 for aflibercept).Conclusions: From a primary healthcare perspective, the dexamethasone as a first‐lineDMEtreatment may increase economic costs in settings where bevacizumab is used off‐label. Treating resistantDMEwith dexamethasone may reduce the costs and treatment burden compared with switching to aflibercept.

Purpose: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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. Conclusions: 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.

Background: Moderate-to-high refractive error generates long-term direct and indirect costs through corrective devices, complications, and productivity losses. The economic value of implantable collamer lens (ICL) surgery relative to contact lens (CL)-based correction with backup spectacles remains uncertain. Objective: To evaluate the 25-year cost-effectiveness of posterior chamber phakic ICL implantation versus CL-based correction across four refractive subgroups from a Norwegian societal perspective. Methods: A Markov cohort model followed patients aged 25–50 years with high myopia, high myopia with astigmatism, high hyperopia, or high hyperopia with astigmatism. Health states incorporated surgical complications, microbial keratitis (MK), cataract, explantation, and death. Direct medical and productivity costs were valued in 2024 Norwegian kroner (NOK), converted to United States dollars (USD), and subsequently reported in USD. Outcomes included quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental costs, incremental net monetary benefit (INMB), and cost-effectiveness probabilities at Norwegian severity-based thresholds (NOK 250,000–825,000/QALY). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: In the deterministic base case, ICL was less costly and more effective in all subgroups. Incremental QALY gains ranged from 0.049 to 0.464, and 25-year savings ranged from USD 1758 to USD 2277 per patient. At USD 27,253/QALY, INMB ranged from USD 3264 to USD 14,921. ICL produced approximately 5–6 additional cataract surgeries per 100 patients but avoided approximately 1.1–1.3 MK infections per 100 CL users and provided 0.6–0.9 additional years in the “Well” state. Cost-effectiveness probabilities ranged from 52.7% to 74.2% and were highest in the astigmatic subgroups. Utilities were the principal uncertainty drivers; the 52.7% probability observed for high hyperopia indicated limited robustness. Conclusions: Over 25 years, ICL may provide cost savings and quality-of-life gains compared with CL-based correction in appropriately selected patients. These findings depend on model assumptions and should not be interpreted as a lifetime evaluation.