Subthreshold micropulse laser versus standard laser for the treatment of central-involving diabetic macular oedema with central retinal thickness of <400µ: a cost-effectiveness analysis from the DIAMONDS trial

Abstract

ObjectivesTo estimate the economic costs, health-related quality-of-life outcomes and cost-effectiveness of subthreshold micropulse laser (SML) versus standard laser (SL) for the treatment of diabetic macular oedema (DMO) with central retinal thickness (CRT) of <400µ.DesignAn economic evaluation was conducted within a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised clinical trial, DIAbetic Macular Oedema aNd Diode Subthreshold.Setting18 UK Hospital Eye Services.ParticipantsAdults with diabetes and centre involving DMO with CRT<400µ.InterventionsParticipants (n=266) were randomised 1:1 to receive SML or SL.MethodsThe base-case used an intention-to-treat approach conducted from a UK National Health Service (NHS) and personal social services (PSS) perspective. Costs (2019–2020 prices) were collected prospectively over the 2-year follow-up period. A bivariate regression of costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), with multiple imputation of missing data, was conducted to estimate the incremental cost per QALY gained and the incremental net monetary benefit of SML in comparison to SL. Sensitivity analyses explored uncertainty and heterogeneity in cost-effectiveness estimates.ResultsOne participant in the SL arm withdrew consent for data to be used; data from the remaining 265 participants were included in analyses. Mean (SE) NHS and PSS costs over 24 months were £735.09 (£111.85) in the SML arm vs £1099.70 (£195.40) in the SL arm (p=0.107). Mean (SE) QALY estimates were 1.493 (0.024) vs 1.485 (0.020), respectively (p=0.780), giving an insignificant difference of 0.008 QALYs. The probability SML is cost-effective at a threshold of £20 000 per QALY was 76%.ConclusionsThere were no statistically significant differences in EQ-5D-5L scores or costs between SML and SL. Given these findings and the fact that SML does not burn the retina, unlike SL and has equivalent efficacy to SL, it may be preferred for the treatment of people with DMO with CRT<400µ.Trial registration numbersISRCTN17742985;NCT03690050.