Serveur d'exploration sur les dispositifs haptiques

Attention, ce site est en cours de développement !
Attention, site généré par des moyens informatiques à partir de corpus bruts.
Les informations ne sont donc pas validées.

Intraocular Lenses for the Treatment of Age-Related Cataracts

Identifieur interne : 001503 ( Pmc/Curation ); précédent : 001502; suivant : 001504

Intraocular Lenses for the Treatment of Age-Related Cataracts

Auteurs :

Source :

RBID : PMC:3377510

Abstract

Executive SummaryObjective

The objective of the report is to examine the comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of various intraocular lenses (IOLs) for the treatment of age-related cataracts.

Clinical Need: Target Population and Condition

A cataract is a hardening and clouding of the normally transparent crystalline lens that may result in a progressive loss of vision depending on its size, location and density. The condition is typically bilateral, seriously compromises visual acuity and contrast sensitivity and increases glare. Cataracts can also affect people at any age, however, they usually occur as a part of the natural aging process. The occurrence of cataracts increases with age from about 12% at age 50 years, to 60% at age 70. In general, approximately 50% of people 65 year of age or older have cataracts. Mild cataracts can be treated with a change in prescription glasses, while more serious symptoms are treated by surgical removal of the cataract and implantation of an IOL.

In Ontario, the estimated prevalence of cataracts increased from 697,000 in 1992 to 947,000 in 2004 (35.9% increase, 2.4% annual increase). The number of cataract surgeries per 1,000 individuals at risk of cataract increased from 64.6 in 1992 to 140.4 in 1997 (61.9% increase, 10.1% annual increase) and continued to steadily increase to 115.7 in 2004 (10.7% increase, 5.2% increase per year).

Description of Technology/Therapy

IOLs are classified either as monofocal, multifocal, or accommodative. Traditionally, monofocal (i.e.. fixed focusing power) IOLs are available as replacement lenses but their implantation can cause a loss of the eye’s accommodative capability (which allows variable focusing). Patients thus usually require eyeglasses after surgery for reading and near vision tasks. Multifocal IOLs aim to improve near and distant vision and obviate the need for glasses. Potential disadvantages include reduced contrast sensitivity, halos around lights and glare. Accommodating IOLs are designed to move with ciliary body contraction during accommodation and, therefore, offer a continuous range of vision (i.e. near, intermediate and distant vision) without the need for glasses. Purported advantages over multifocal IOLs include the avoidance of haloes and no reduction in contrast sensitivity.

Polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) was the first material used in the fabrication of IOLs and has inherent ultraviolet blocking abilities. PMMA IOLs are inflexible, however, and require a larger incision for implantation compared with newer foldable silicone (hydrophobic) and acrylic (hydrophobic or hydrophilic) lenses. IOLs can be further sub-classified as being either aspheric or spheric, blue/violet filtered or non-filtered or 1- or 3-piece.

Methods of Evidence-Based Analysis

A literature search was conducted from January 2003 to January 2009 that included OVID MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), The Cochrane Library, and the International Agency for Health Technology Assessment/Centre for Review and Dissemination.

Inclusion CriteriaExclusion Criteria

adult patients with age-related cataracts

systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials (RCTs)

primary outcomes: distance visual acuity (best corrected distance visual acuity), near visual acuity (best distance corrected near visual acuity)

secondary outcomes: contrast sensitivity, depth of field, glare, quality of life, visual function, spectacle dependence, posterior capsule opacification.

studies with fewer than 20 eyes

IOLs for non-age related cataracts

IOLs for presbyopia

studies with a mean follow-up <6months

studies reporting insufficient data for analysis

Comparisons of Interest

The primary comparison of interest was accommodative vs. multifocal vs. monofocal lenses.

Secondary comparisons of interest included:

tinted vs. non-tinted lenses

aspheric vs. spheric lenses

multipiece vs. single piece lenses

biomaterial A (e.g. acrylic) vs. biomaterial B (e.g. silicone) lenses

sharp vs. round edged lenses

The quality of the studies was examined according to the GRADE Working Group criteria for grading quality of evidence for interventional procedures.

Summary of Findings

The conclusions of the systematic review of IOLs for age-related cataracts are summarized in Executive Summary Table 1.

Considerations for the Ontario Health System

Procedures for crystalline lens removal and IOL insertion are insured and listed in the Ontario Schedule of Benefits.

If a particular lens is determined to be medically necessary for a patient, the cost of the lens is covered by the hospital budget. If the patient chooses a lens that has enhanced features, then the hospital may choose to charge an additional amount above the cost of the usual lens offered.

An IOL manufacturer stated that monofocal lenses comprise approximately 95% of IOL sales in Ontario and premium lenses (e.g., multifocal/accomodative) consist of about 5% of IOL sales.

A medical consultant stated that all types of lenses are currently being used in Ontario (e.g., multifocal, monofocal, accommodative, tinted, nontinted, spheric, and aspheric). Nonfoldable lenses, rarely used in routine cases, are primarily used for complicated cataract implantation situations.

Conclusions for the Systematic Review of IOLs for Age-Related Cataracts
ComparisonConclusionGRADE Quality
Multifocal vs. monofocalObjective OutcomesSignificant improvement in BDCUNVANo significant difference in BCDVAInconclusive evidence for contrast sensitivityInconclusive evidence for glareSubjective OutcomesInconclusive evidence for visual satisfactionSignificant increase in glare/halosSignificant increase in freedom from spectaclesmoderatemoderatelowvery lowlowlow/moderatelow/moderate
Accommodative vs. multifocal/monofocalInconclusive due to Insufficient limited evidence for any effectiveness outcomevery low
Hydrophilic acrylic vs. other materials (hydrophobic acrylic, silicone)Significant increase in PCO scoreLow
Sharp edged compared to round edgedSignificant reduction in PCO scoreLow
One piece compared to three pieceNo significant difference in PCO scorelow
Hydrophobic acrylic compared to siliconeNo significant difference in PCO scoremoderate
Aspherical modified prolate anterior surface compared to sphericalNo significant difference in VASignificant reduction in contrast sensitivityvery lowvery low
Blue light filtering compared to non blue-light filteringNo significant difference in BCDVANo significant difference in contrast sensitivityNo significant difference in HRQLlowlowhigh/moderate

BCDVA refers to best corrected distance visual acuity; BDCUNVA, best distance corrected unaided near visual acuity; HRQL, health related quality of life; PCO, posterior capsule opacification; VA, visual acuity.


Url:
PubMed: 23074519
PubMed Central: 3377510

Links toward previous steps (curation, corpus...)


Links to Exploration step

PMC:3377510

Le document en format XML

<record>
<TEI>
<teiHeader>
<fileDesc>
<titleStmt>
<title xml:lang="en">Intraocular Lenses for the Treatment of Age-Related Cataracts</title>
</titleStmt>
<publicationStmt>
<idno type="wicri:source">PMC</idno>
<idno type="pmid">23074519</idno>
<idno type="pmc">3377510</idno>
<idno type="url">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3377510</idno>
<idno type="RBID">PMC:3377510</idno>
<date when="2009">2009</date>
<idno type="wicri:Area/Pmc/Corpus">001503</idno>
<idno type="wicri:Area/Pmc/Curation">001503</idno>
</publicationStmt>
<sourceDesc>
<biblStruct>
<analytic>
<title xml:lang="en" level="a" type="main">Intraocular Lenses for the Treatment of Age-Related Cataracts</title>
</analytic>
<series>
<title level="j">Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series</title>
<idno type="eISSN">1915-7398</idno>
<imprint>
<date when="2009">2009</date>
</imprint>
</series>
</biblStruct>
</sourceDesc>
</fileDesc>
<profileDesc>
<textClass></textClass>
</profileDesc>
</teiHeader>
<front>
<div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">
<title>Executive Summary</title>
<sec id="A01lev1sec1">
<title>Objective</title>
<p>The objective of the report is to examine the comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of various intraocular lenses (IOLs) for the treatment of age-related cataracts.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="A01lev1sec2">
<title>Clinical Need: Target Population and Condition</title>
<p>A cataract is a hardening and clouding of the normally transparent crystalline lens that may result in a progressive loss of vision depending on its size, location and density. The condition is typically bilateral, seriously compromises visual acuity and contrast sensitivity and increases glare. Cataracts can also affect people at any age, however, they usually occur as a part of the natural aging process. The occurrence of cataracts increases with age from about 12% at age 50 years, to 60% at age 70. In general, approximately 50% of people 65 year of age or older have cataracts. Mild cataracts can be treated with a change in prescription glasses, while more serious symptoms are treated by surgical removal of the cataract and implantation of an IOL.</p>
<p>In Ontario, the estimated prevalence of cataracts increased from 697,000 in 1992 to 947,000 in 2004 (35.9% increase, 2.4% annual increase). The number of cataract surgeries per 1,000 individuals at risk of cataract increased from 64.6 in 1992 to 140.4 in 1997 (61.9% increase, 10.1% annual increase) and continued to steadily increase to 115.7 in 2004 (10.7% increase, 5.2% increase per year).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="A01lev1sec3">
<title>Description of Technology/Therapy</title>
<p>IOLs are classified either as monofocal, multifocal, or accommodative. Traditionally, monofocal (i.e.. fixed focusing power) IOLs are available as replacement lenses but their implantation can cause a loss of the eye’s accommodative capability (which allows variable focusing). Patients thus usually require eyeglasses after surgery for reading and near vision tasks. Multifocal IOLs aim to improve near and distant vision and obviate the need for glasses. Potential disadvantages include reduced contrast sensitivity, halos around lights and glare. Accommodating IOLs are designed to move with ciliary body contraction during accommodation and, therefore, offer a continuous range of vision (i.e. near, intermediate and distant vision) without the need for glasses. Purported advantages over multifocal IOLs include the avoidance of haloes and no reduction in contrast sensitivity.</p>
<p>Polymethyl methacrylate (
<abbrev>PMMA</abbrev>
) was the first material used in the fabrication of IOLs and has inherent ultraviolet blocking abilities. PMMA IOLs are inflexible, however, and require a larger incision for implantation compared with newer foldable silicone (hydrophobic) and acrylic (hydrophobic or hydrophilic) lenses. IOLs can be further sub-classified as being either aspheric or spheric, blue/violet filtered or non-filtered or 1- or 3-piece.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="A01lev1sec4">
<title>Methods of Evidence-Based Analysis</title>
<p>A literature search was conducted from January 2003 to January 2009 that included OVID MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), The Cochrane Library, and the International Agency for Health Technology Assessment/Centre for Review and Dissemination.</p>
<table-wrap id="A01table01" orientation="portrait" position="anchor">
<table frame="void" rules="none" cellspacing="2" cellpadding="2" border="1">
<thead>
<tr>
<th valign="top" align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Inclusion Criteria</th>
<th valign="top" align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Exclusion Criteria</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">
<list list-type="bullet">
<list-item>
<p>adult patients with age-related cataracts</p>
</list-item>
<list-item>
<p>systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials (RCTs)</p>
</list-item>
<list-item>
<p>primary outcomes: distance visual acuity (best corrected distance visual acuity), near visual acuity (best distance corrected near visual acuity)</p>
</list-item>
<list-item>
<p>secondary outcomes: contrast sensitivity, depth of field, glare, quality of life, visual function, spectacle dependence, posterior capsule opacification.</p>
</list-item>
</list>
</td>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">
<list list-type="bullet">
<list-item>
<p>studies with fewer than 20 eyes</p>
</list-item>
<list-item>
<p>IOLs for non-age related cataracts</p>
</list-item>
<list-item>
<p>IOLs for presbyopia</p>
</list-item>
<list-item>
<p>studies with a mean follow-up <6months</p>
</list-item>
<list-item>
<p>studies reporting insufficient data for analysis</p>
</list-item>
</list>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</table-wrap>
<sec id="A01lev2sec1">
<title>Comparisons of Interest</title>
<p>The primary comparison of interest was accommodative vs. multifocal vs. monofocal lenses.</p>
<p>Secondary comparisons of interest included:</p>
<list list-type="bullet">
<list-item>
<p>tinted vs. non-tinted lenses</p>
</list-item>
<list-item>
<p>aspheric vs. spheric lenses</p>
</list-item>
<list-item>
<p>multipiece vs. single piece lenses</p>
</list-item>
<list-item>
<p>biomaterial A (e.g. acrylic) vs. biomaterial B (e.g. silicone) lenses</p>
</list-item>
<list-item>
<p>sharp vs. round edged lenses</p>
</list-item>
</list>
<p>The quality of the studies was examined according to the GRADE Working Group criteria for grading quality of evidence for interventional procedures.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="A01lev1sec5">
<title>Summary of Findings</title>
<p>The conclusions of the systematic review of IOLs for age-related cataracts are summarized in Executive Summary
<xref rid="A01tab01" ref-type="table">Table 1</xref>
.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="A01lev1sec6">
<title>Considerations for the Ontario Health System</title>
<list list-type="bullet">
<list-item>
<p>Procedures for crystalline lens removal and IOL insertion are insured and listed in the Ontario Schedule of Benefits.</p>
</list-item>
<list-item>
<p>If a particular lens is determined to be medically necessary for a patient, the cost of the lens is covered by the hospital budget. If the patient chooses a lens that has enhanced features, then the hospital may choose to charge an additional amount above the cost of the usual lens offered.</p>
</list-item>
<list-item>
<p>An IOL manufacturer stated that monofocal lenses comprise approximately 95% of IOL sales in Ontario and premium lenses (e.g., multifocal/accomodative) consist of about 5% of IOL sales.</p>
</list-item>
<list-item>
<p>A medical consultant stated that all types of lenses are currently being used in Ontario (e.g., multifocal, monofocal, accommodative, tinted, nontinted, spheric, and aspheric). Nonfoldable lenses, rarely used in routine cases, are primarily used for complicated cataract implantation situations.</p>
</list-item>
</list>
<table-wrap id="A01estab01" orientation="portrait" position="float">
<label>ES Table 1:</label>
<caption>
<title>Conclusions for the Systematic Review of IOLs for Age-Related Cataracts</title>
</caption>
<table frame="hsides" rules="rows" cellspacing="2" cellpadding="2" border="1">
<thead>
<tr>
<th style="background-color: #C0C0C0" valign="bottom" align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Comparison</th>
<th style="background-color: #C0C0C0" valign="bottom" align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Conclusion</th>
<th style="background-color: #C0C0C0" valign="bottom" align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">GRADE Quality</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Multifocal vs. monofocal</td>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">
<underline>Objective Outcomes</underline>
<break></break>
Significant improvement in BDCUNVA
<break></break>
No significant difference in BCDVA
<break></break>
Inconclusive evidence for contrast sensitivity
<break></break>
Inconclusive evidence for glare
<break></break>
<break></break>
<underline>Subjective Outcomes</underline>
<break></break>
Inconclusive evidence for visual satisfaction
<break></break>
Significant increase in glare/halos
<break></break>
Significant increase in freedom from spectacles</td>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">
<break></break>
moderate
<break></break>
moderate
<break></break>
low
<break></break>
very low
<break></break>
<break></break>
<break></break>
low
<break></break>
low/moderate
<break></break>
low/moderate</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Accommodative vs. multifocal/monofocal</td>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Inconclusive due to Insufficient limited evidence for any effectiveness outcome</td>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">very low</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Hydrophilic acrylic vs. other materials (hydrophobic acrylic, silicone)</td>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Significant increase in PCO score</td>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Low</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Sharp edged compared to round edged</td>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Significant reduction in PCO score</td>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Low</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">One piece compared to three piece</td>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">No significant difference in PCO score</td>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">low</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Hydrophobic acrylic compared to silicone</td>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">No significant difference in PCO score</td>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">moderate</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Aspherical modified prolate anterior surface compared to spherical</td>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">No significant difference in VA
<break></break>
Significant reduction in contrast sensitivity</td>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">very low
<break></break>
very low</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Blue light filtering compared to non blue-light filtering</td>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">No significant difference in BCDVA
<break></break>
No significant difference in contrast sensitivity
<break></break>
No significant difference in HRQL</td>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">low
<break></break>
low
<break></break>
high/moderate</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table-wrap-foot>
<fn>
<label></label>
<p>BCDVA refers to best corrected distance visual acuity; BDCUNVA, best distance corrected unaided near visual acuity; HRQL, health related quality of life; PCO, posterior capsule opacification; VA, visual acuity.</p>
</fn>
</table-wrap-foot>
</table-wrap>
</sec>
</div>
</front>
</TEI>
<pmc article-type="research-article">
<pmc-comment>The publisher of this article does not allow downloading of the full text in XML form.</pmc-comment>
<front>
<journal-meta>
<journal-id journal-id-type="nlm-ta">Ont Health Technol Assess Ser</journal-id>
<journal-id journal-id-type="iso-abbrev">Ont Health Technol Assess Ser</journal-id>
<journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">OHTAS</journal-id>
<journal-title-group>
<journal-title>Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series</journal-title>
</journal-title-group>
<issn pub-type="epub">1915-7398</issn>
<publisher>
<publisher-name>Medical Advisory Secretariat</publisher-name>
</publisher>
</journal-meta>
<article-meta>
<article-id pub-id-type="pmid">23074519</article-id>
<article-id pub-id-type="pmc">3377510</article-id>
<article-categories>
<subj-group subj-group-type="heading">
<subject>Research Article</subject>
</subj-group>
</article-categories>
<title-group>
<article-title>Intraocular Lenses for the Treatment of Age-Related Cataracts</article-title>
<subtitle>An Evidence-Based Analysis</subtitle>
</title-group>
<contrib-group>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<collab>Health Quality Ontario</collab>
</contrib>
</contrib-group>
<author-notes>
<fn>
<p>Presented to the Ontario Health Technology Advisory Committee in June, 2009</p>
</fn>
</author-notes>
<pub-date pub-type="collection">
<year>2009</year>
</pub-date>
<pub-date pub-type="epub">
<day>1</day>
<month>10</month>
<year>2009</year>
</pub-date>
<volume>9</volume>
<issue>15</issue>
<fpage>1</fpage>
<lpage>62</lpage>
<permissions>
<copyright-statement>Copyright © 2009, The Medical Advisory Secretariat</copyright-statement>
<copyright-year>2009</copyright-year>
</permissions>
<abstract>
<title>Executive Summary</title>
<sec id="A01lev1sec1">
<title>Objective</title>
<p>The objective of the report is to examine the comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of various intraocular lenses (IOLs) for the treatment of age-related cataracts.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="A01lev1sec2">
<title>Clinical Need: Target Population and Condition</title>
<p>A cataract is a hardening and clouding of the normally transparent crystalline lens that may result in a progressive loss of vision depending on its size, location and density. The condition is typically bilateral, seriously compromises visual acuity and contrast sensitivity and increases glare. Cataracts can also affect people at any age, however, they usually occur as a part of the natural aging process. The occurrence of cataracts increases with age from about 12% at age 50 years, to 60% at age 70. In general, approximately 50% of people 65 year of age or older have cataracts. Mild cataracts can be treated with a change in prescription glasses, while more serious symptoms are treated by surgical removal of the cataract and implantation of an IOL.</p>
<p>In Ontario, the estimated prevalence of cataracts increased from 697,000 in 1992 to 947,000 in 2004 (35.9% increase, 2.4% annual increase). The number of cataract surgeries per 1,000 individuals at risk of cataract increased from 64.6 in 1992 to 140.4 in 1997 (61.9% increase, 10.1% annual increase) and continued to steadily increase to 115.7 in 2004 (10.7% increase, 5.2% increase per year).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="A01lev1sec3">
<title>Description of Technology/Therapy</title>
<p>IOLs are classified either as monofocal, multifocal, or accommodative. Traditionally, monofocal (i.e.. fixed focusing power) IOLs are available as replacement lenses but their implantation can cause a loss of the eye’s accommodative capability (which allows variable focusing). Patients thus usually require eyeglasses after surgery for reading and near vision tasks. Multifocal IOLs aim to improve near and distant vision and obviate the need for glasses. Potential disadvantages include reduced contrast sensitivity, halos around lights and glare. Accommodating IOLs are designed to move with ciliary body contraction during accommodation and, therefore, offer a continuous range of vision (i.e. near, intermediate and distant vision) without the need for glasses. Purported advantages over multifocal IOLs include the avoidance of haloes and no reduction in contrast sensitivity.</p>
<p>Polymethyl methacrylate (
<abbrev>PMMA</abbrev>
) was the first material used in the fabrication of IOLs and has inherent ultraviolet blocking abilities. PMMA IOLs are inflexible, however, and require a larger incision for implantation compared with newer foldable silicone (hydrophobic) and acrylic (hydrophobic or hydrophilic) lenses. IOLs can be further sub-classified as being either aspheric or spheric, blue/violet filtered or non-filtered or 1- or 3-piece.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="A01lev1sec4">
<title>Methods of Evidence-Based Analysis</title>
<p>A literature search was conducted from January 2003 to January 2009 that included OVID MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), The Cochrane Library, and the International Agency for Health Technology Assessment/Centre for Review and Dissemination.</p>
<table-wrap id="A01table01" orientation="portrait" position="anchor">
<table frame="void" rules="none" cellspacing="2" cellpadding="2" border="1">
<thead>
<tr>
<th valign="top" align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Inclusion Criteria</th>
<th valign="top" align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Exclusion Criteria</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">
<list list-type="bullet">
<list-item>
<p>adult patients with age-related cataracts</p>
</list-item>
<list-item>
<p>systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials (RCTs)</p>
</list-item>
<list-item>
<p>primary outcomes: distance visual acuity (best corrected distance visual acuity), near visual acuity (best distance corrected near visual acuity)</p>
</list-item>
<list-item>
<p>secondary outcomes: contrast sensitivity, depth of field, glare, quality of life, visual function, spectacle dependence, posterior capsule opacification.</p>
</list-item>
</list>
</td>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">
<list list-type="bullet">
<list-item>
<p>studies with fewer than 20 eyes</p>
</list-item>
<list-item>
<p>IOLs for non-age related cataracts</p>
</list-item>
<list-item>
<p>IOLs for presbyopia</p>
</list-item>
<list-item>
<p>studies with a mean follow-up <6months</p>
</list-item>
<list-item>
<p>studies reporting insufficient data for analysis</p>
</list-item>
</list>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</table-wrap>
<sec id="A01lev2sec1">
<title>Comparisons of Interest</title>
<p>The primary comparison of interest was accommodative vs. multifocal vs. monofocal lenses.</p>
<p>Secondary comparisons of interest included:</p>
<list list-type="bullet">
<list-item>
<p>tinted vs. non-tinted lenses</p>
</list-item>
<list-item>
<p>aspheric vs. spheric lenses</p>
</list-item>
<list-item>
<p>multipiece vs. single piece lenses</p>
</list-item>
<list-item>
<p>biomaterial A (e.g. acrylic) vs. biomaterial B (e.g. silicone) lenses</p>
</list-item>
<list-item>
<p>sharp vs. round edged lenses</p>
</list-item>
</list>
<p>The quality of the studies was examined according to the GRADE Working Group criteria for grading quality of evidence for interventional procedures.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="A01lev1sec5">
<title>Summary of Findings</title>
<p>The conclusions of the systematic review of IOLs for age-related cataracts are summarized in Executive Summary
<xref rid="A01tab01" ref-type="table">Table 1</xref>
.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="A01lev1sec6">
<title>Considerations for the Ontario Health System</title>
<list list-type="bullet">
<list-item>
<p>Procedures for crystalline lens removal and IOL insertion are insured and listed in the Ontario Schedule of Benefits.</p>
</list-item>
<list-item>
<p>If a particular lens is determined to be medically necessary for a patient, the cost of the lens is covered by the hospital budget. If the patient chooses a lens that has enhanced features, then the hospital may choose to charge an additional amount above the cost of the usual lens offered.</p>
</list-item>
<list-item>
<p>An IOL manufacturer stated that monofocal lenses comprise approximately 95% of IOL sales in Ontario and premium lenses (e.g., multifocal/accomodative) consist of about 5% of IOL sales.</p>
</list-item>
<list-item>
<p>A medical consultant stated that all types of lenses are currently being used in Ontario (e.g., multifocal, monofocal, accommodative, tinted, nontinted, spheric, and aspheric). Nonfoldable lenses, rarely used in routine cases, are primarily used for complicated cataract implantation situations.</p>
</list-item>
</list>
<table-wrap id="A01estab01" orientation="portrait" position="float">
<label>ES Table 1:</label>
<caption>
<title>Conclusions for the Systematic Review of IOLs for Age-Related Cataracts</title>
</caption>
<table frame="hsides" rules="rows" cellspacing="2" cellpadding="2" border="1">
<thead>
<tr>
<th style="background-color: #C0C0C0" valign="bottom" align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Comparison</th>
<th style="background-color: #C0C0C0" valign="bottom" align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Conclusion</th>
<th style="background-color: #C0C0C0" valign="bottom" align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">GRADE Quality</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Multifocal vs. monofocal</td>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">
<underline>Objective Outcomes</underline>
<break></break>
Significant improvement in BDCUNVA
<break></break>
No significant difference in BCDVA
<break></break>
Inconclusive evidence for contrast sensitivity
<break></break>
Inconclusive evidence for glare
<break></break>
<break></break>
<underline>Subjective Outcomes</underline>
<break></break>
Inconclusive evidence for visual satisfaction
<break></break>
Significant increase in glare/halos
<break></break>
Significant increase in freedom from spectacles</td>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">
<break></break>
moderate
<break></break>
moderate
<break></break>
low
<break></break>
very low
<break></break>
<break></break>
<break></break>
low
<break></break>
low/moderate
<break></break>
low/moderate</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Accommodative vs. multifocal/monofocal</td>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Inconclusive due to Insufficient limited evidence for any effectiveness outcome</td>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">very low</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Hydrophilic acrylic vs. other materials (hydrophobic acrylic, silicone)</td>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Significant increase in PCO score</td>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Low</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Sharp edged compared to round edged</td>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Significant reduction in PCO score</td>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Low</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">One piece compared to three piece</td>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">No significant difference in PCO score</td>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">low</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Hydrophobic acrylic compared to silicone</td>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">No significant difference in PCO score</td>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">moderate</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Aspherical modified prolate anterior surface compared to spherical</td>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">No significant difference in VA
<break></break>
Significant reduction in contrast sensitivity</td>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">very low
<break></break>
very low</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Blue light filtering compared to non blue-light filtering</td>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">No significant difference in BCDVA
<break></break>
No significant difference in contrast sensitivity
<break></break>
No significant difference in HRQL</td>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">low
<break></break>
low
<break></break>
high/moderate</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table-wrap-foot>
<fn>
<label></label>
<p>BCDVA refers to best corrected distance visual acuity; BDCUNVA, best distance corrected unaided near visual acuity; HRQL, health related quality of life; PCO, posterior capsule opacification; VA, visual acuity.</p>
</fn>
</table-wrap-foot>
</table-wrap>
</sec>
</abstract>
</article-meta>
<notes>
<sec id="A01fm01" sec-type="copyright">
<title>Suggested Citation</title>
<p>This report should be cited as follows:</p>
<p>Medical Advisory Secretariat. Intraocular lenses for the treatment of age-related cataracts: an evidence-based analysis.
<italic>Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series</italic>
2009;9(
<xref rid="A01ref15" ref-type="bibr">15</xref>
).</p>
</sec>
<sec>
<title>Permission Requests</title>
<p>All inquiries regarding permission to reproduce any content in the
<italic>Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series</italic>
should be directed to
<email>MASinfo.moh@ontario.ca</email>
.</p>
</sec>
<sec>
<title>How to Obtain Issues in the Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series</title>
<p>All reports in the
<italic>Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series</italic>
are freely available in PDF format at the following URL:
<uri xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="http://www.health.gov.on.ca/ohtas">www.health.gov.on.ca/ohtas</uri>
.</p>
<p>Print copies can be obtained by contacting
<email>MASinfo.moh@ontario.ca</email>
.</p>
</sec>
<sec>
<title>Conflict of Interest Statement</title>
<p>All analyses in the Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series are impartial and subject to a systematic evidence-based assessment process. There are no competing interests or conflicts of interest to declare.</p>
</sec>
<sec>
<title>Peer Review</title>
<p>All Medical Advisory Secretariat analyses are subject to external expert peer review. Additionally, the public consultation process is also available to individuals wishing to comment on an analysis prior to finalization. For more information, please visit
<uri xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/providers/program/ohtac/public_engage_overview.html">http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/providers/program/ohtac/public_engage_overview.html</uri>
.</p>
</sec>
<sec>
<title>Contact Information</title>
<p>The Medical Advisory Secretariat</p>
<p>Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care</p>
<p>20 Dundas Street West, 10th floor</p>
<p>Toronto, Ontario</p>
<p>CANADA</p>
<p>M5G 2C2</p>
<p>Email:
<email>MASinfo.moh@ontario.ca</email>
</p>
<p>Telephone: 416-314-1092</p>
<p>ISSN 1915-7398 (Online)</p>
<p>ISBN 978-1-4435-0637-3 (PDF)</p>
</sec>
<sec id="A01fm02">
<title>About the Medical Advisory Secretariat</title>
<p>The Medical Advisory Secretariat is part of the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. The mandate of the Medical Advisory Secretariat is to provide evidence-based policy advice on the coordinated uptake of health services and new health technologies in Ontario to the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care and to the healthcare system. The aim is to ensure that residents of Ontario have access to the best available new health technologies that will improve patient outcomes.</p>
<p>The Medical Advisory Secretariat also provides a secretariat function and evidence-based health technology policy analysis for review by the Ontario Health Technology Advisory Committee (
<abbrev>OHTAC</abbrev>
).</p>
<p>The Medical Advisory Secretariat conducts systematic reviews of scientific evidence and consultations with experts in the health care services community to produce the
<italic>Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series</italic>
.</p>
</sec>
<sec>
<title>About the Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series</title>
<p>To conduct its comprehensive analyses, the Medical Advisory Secretariat systematically reviews available scientific literature, collaborates with partners across relevant government branches, and consults with clinical and other external experts and manufacturers, and solicits any necessary advice to gather information. The Medical Advisory Secretariat makes every effort to ensure that all relevant research, nationally and internationally, is included in the systematic literature reviews conducted.</p>
<p>The information gathered is the foundation of the evidence to determine if a technology is effective and safe for use in a particular clinical population or setting. Information is collected to understand how a new technology fits within current practice and treatment alternatives. Details of the technology’s diffusion into current practice and input from practising medical experts and industry add important information to the review of the provision and delivery of the health technology in Ontario. Information concerning the health benefits; economic and human resources; and ethical, regulatory, social and legal issues relating to the technology assist policy makers to make timely and relevant decisions to optimize patient outcomes.</p>
<p>If you are aware of any current additional evidence to inform an existing evidence-based analysis, please contact the Medical Advisory Secretariat:
<email>MASinfo.moh@ontario.ca</email>
. The public consultation process is also available to individuals wishing to comment on an analysis prior to publication. For more information, please visit
<uri xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/providers/program/ohtac/public_engage_overview.html">//www.health.gov.on.ca/english/providers/program/ohtac/public_engage_overview.html</uri>
.</p>
</sec>
<sec>
<title>Disclaimer</title>
<p>This evidence-based analysis was prepared by the Medical Advisory Secretariat, Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, for the Ontario Health Technology Advisory Committee and developed from analysis, interpretation, and comparison of scientific research and/or technology assessments conducted by other organizations. It also incorporates, when available, Ontario data, and information provided by experts and applicants to the Medical Advisory Secretariat to inform the analysis. While every effort has been made to reflect all scientific research available, this document may not fully do so. Additionally, other relevant scientific findings may have been reported since completion of the review. This evidence-based analysis is current to the date of publication. This analysis may be superseded by an updated publication on the same topic. Please check the Medical Advisory Secretariat Website for a list of all evidence-based analyses:
<uri xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="http://www.health.gov.on.ca/ohtas">http://www.health.gov.on.ca/ohtas</uri>
.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="A01fm03" sec-type="List Of Tables and Figures">
<title>List of Tables & Figures</title>
<table-wrap id="A01fm04tab01" orientation="portrait" position="anchor">
<table frame="void" rules="none" cellspacing="2" cellpadding="2" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">
<xref rid="A01estab01" ref-type="table">ES Table 1:</xref>
Conclusions for the Systematic Review of IOLs for Age-Related Cataracts</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">
<xref rid="A01tab01" ref-type="table">Table 1:</xref>
Classification of IOLs for Cataracts</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">
<xref rid="A01tab02" ref-type="table">Table 2:</xref>
Subclassifications of IOLs for Cataracts</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">
<xref rid="A01tab03" ref-type="table">Table 3:</xref>
Quality of Evidence of Included Studies</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">
<xref rid="A01tab04" ref-type="table">Table 4:</xref>
Conclusions of Descriptive Systematic Reviews from International HTA Organizations</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">
<xref rid="A01tab05" ref-type="table">Table 5:</xref>
Meta-Analytic Results for Comparisons of IOL Materials from Findl et al.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">
<xref rid="A01tab06" ref-type="table">Table 6:</xref>
Meta-Analytic Results for Comparisons of IOL Designs (Round and Sharp Edges) from Findl et al.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">
<xref rid="A01tab07" ref-type="table">Table 7:</xref>
Meta-Analytic Results for Comparisons of IOL Designs (One and Three Piece) from the Cochrane Systematic Review by Findl et al.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">
<xref rid="A01tab08" ref-type="table">Table 8:</xref>
Limitations of Studies Included in Findl and Leydolt, 2007</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">
<xref rid="A01tab09" ref-type="table">Table 9:</xref>
Studies Comparing IOL Material and Design with PCO as the Primary Outcome (Published after Cochrane Review)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">
<xref rid="A01tab10" ref-type="table">Table 10:</xref>
Studies Comparing Blue Light Filtering to Non-Blue Light Filtering IOLs.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">
<xref rid="A01tab11" ref-type="table">Table 11:</xref>
GRADE Quality of Evidence for Interventions – Multifocal vs. Monofocal Lenses Objective Endpoints</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">
<xref rid="A01tab12" ref-type="table">Table 12:</xref>
GRADE Quality of Evidence for Interventions – Multifocal vs. Monofocal Lenses Subjective Endpoints</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">
<xref rid="A01tab13" ref-type="table">Table 13:</xref>
GRADE Quality of Evidence for Interventions – Accommodating IOLs</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">
<xref rid="A01tab14" ref-type="table">Table 14:</xref>
GRADE Quality of Evidence for Interventions – Hydrophilic Acrylic Compared to All Other Materials</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">
<xref rid="A01tab15" ref-type="table">Table 15:</xref>
GRADE Quality of Evidence for Interventions – Sharp Edged Compared to Round Edged IOLs Regardless of Lens Material.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">
<xref rid="A01tab16" ref-type="table">Table 16:</xref>
GRADE Quality of Evidence for Interventions – 1-Piece Compared to-3 Piece IOLs</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">
<xref rid="A01tab17" ref-type="table">Table 17:</xref>
GRADE Quality of Evidence for Interventions – Acrylic Compared to Silicone (Same Optic Design and Haptics)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">
<xref rid="A01tab18" ref-type="table">Table 18:</xref>
GRADE Quality of Evidence for Interventions – Modified Prolate Anterior Surface IOLs</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">
<xref rid="A01tab19" ref-type="table">Table 19:</xref>
GRADE Quality of Evidence for Interventions – Blue Light Filtering IOLs</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">
<xref rid="A01tab20" ref-type="table">Table 20:</xref>
Conclusions for the Systematic Review of IOLs for Age-Related Cataracts</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">
<xref rid="A01fig01" ref-type="fig">Figure 1:</xref>
Markov health states for the evaluation of IOL strategies for age-related cataracts</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">
<xref rid="A01fig02" ref-type="fig">Figure 2:</xref>
Markov model for CUA evaluating Strategies 1 and 2 for IOL implants for age-related cataracts</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">
<xref rid="A01tab21" ref-type="table">Table 21:</xref>
Costs used in the CUA evaluation associated with IOL devices and PCO complications</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">
<xref rid="A01tab22" ref-type="table">Table 22:</xref>
Probabilities of requiring near or far/distance vision correction after IOL implantation</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">
<xref rid="A01tab23" ref-type="table">Table 23:</xref>
Cost-effectiveness of Strategy 1 (multifocal vs. monofocal IOL made of hydrophobic acrylic)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">
<xref rid="A01tab24" ref-type="table">Table 24:</xref>
Cost-effectiveness of Strategy 2 (hydrophobic acrylic vs. silicone for multifocal IOLs)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">
<xref rid="uA01fig01" ref-type="fig">A2:</xref>
Results of Published Meta-Analyses</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">
<xref rid="A01taba3-1" ref-type="table">A3(1):</xref>
Results of Studies on Posterior Opacification</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">
<xref rid="uA01fig06" ref-type="fig">A3(2):</xref>
Results of Studies on Modified Prolate Anterior Surface IOLs</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">
<xref rid="A01taba3-3" ref-type="table">A3(3):</xref>
Results of Studies on Blue Light Filtering IOLs</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</table-wrap>
</sec>
<sec id="A01fm04" sec-type="Abbreviations">
<title>List of Abbreviations</title>
<def-list>
<def-item>
<term>AUC</term>
<def>
<p>Area under the curve</p>
</def>
</def-item>
<def-item>
<term>BCDVA</term>
<def>
<p>Best corrected distance visual acuity</p>
</def>
</def-item>
<def-item>
<term>BCNVA</term>
<def>
<p>Best corrected near visual acuity</p>
</def>
</def-item>
<def-item>
<term>BCVA</term>
<def>
<p>Best corrected visual acuity</p>
</def>
</def-item>
<def-item>
<term>BDCUNVA</term>
<def>
<p>Best distance corrected unaided near visual acuity</p>
</def>
</def-item>
<def-item>
<term>CI</term>
<def>
<p>Confidence interval(s)</p>
</def>
</def-item>
<def-item>
<term>DCNVA</term>
<def>
<p>Distance corrected near visual acuity</p>
</def>
</def-item>
<def-item>
<term>HRQL</term>
<def>
<p>Health related quality of life</p>
</def>
</def-item>
<def-item>
<term>IOL</term>
<def>
<p>Intraocular lens</p>
</def>
</def-item>
<def-item>
<term>MAS</term>
<def>
<p>Medical Advisory Secretariat</p>
</def>
</def-item>
<def-item>
<term>Nd:YAG</term>
<def>
<p>Neodymium: yttrium-aluminum-garnet</p>
</def>
</def-item>
<def-item>
<term>PCO</term>
<def>
<p>Posterior capsule opacification</p>
</def>
</def-item>
<def-item>
<term>PMMA</term>
<def>
<p>Polymethyl methacrylate</p>
</def>
</def-item>
<def-item>
<term>OR</term>
<def>
<p>Odds ratio</p>
</def>
</def-item>
<def-item>
<term>OHTAC</term>
<def>
<p>Ontario Health Technology Advisory Committee</p>
</def>
</def-item>
<def-item>
<term>RCT</term>
<def>
<p>Randomized controlled trial</p>
</def>
</def-item>
<def-item>
<term>RR</term>
<def>
<p>Relative risk</p>
</def>
</def-item>
<def-item>
<term>SD</term>
<def>
<p>Standard deviation</p>
</def>
</def-item>
<def-item>
<term>SROC</term>
<def>
<p>Summary receiver operating characteristic</p>
</def>
</def-item>
<def-item>
<term>UCVA</term>
<def>
<p>Uncorrected visual acuity</p>
</def>
</def-item>
<def-item>
<term>VA</term>
<def>
<p>Visual acuity</p>
</def>
</def-item>
</def-list>
</sec>
</notes>
</front>
</pmc>
</record>

Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)

EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Ticri/CIDE/explor/HapticV1/Data/Pmc/Curation
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 001503 | SxmlIndent | more

Ou

HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Pmc/Curation/biblio.hfd -nk 001503 | SxmlIndent | more

Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri

{{Explor lien
   |wiki=    Ticri/CIDE
   |area=    HapticV1
   |flux=    Pmc
   |étape=   Curation
   |type=    RBID
   |clé=     PMC:3377510
   |texte=   Intraocular Lenses for the Treatment of Age-Related Cataracts
}}

Pour générer des pages wiki

HfdIndexSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Pmc/Curation/RBID.i   -Sk "pubmed:23074519" \
       | HfdSelect -Kh $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Pmc/Curation/biblio.hfd   \
       | NlmPubMed2Wicri -a HapticV1 

Wicri

This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.23.
Data generation: Mon Jun 13 01:09:46 2016. Site generation: Wed Mar 6 09:54:07 2024