A review of the surgical options for the correction of presbyopia

Presbyopia is an age-related eye condition where one of the signs is the reduction in the amplitude of accommodation, resulting in the loss of ability to change the eye's focus from far to near. It is the most common age-related ailments affecting everyone around their mid-40s. Methods for the correction of presbyopia include contact lens and spectacle options but the surgical correction of presbyopia still remains a significant challenge for refractive surgeons. Surgical strategies for dealing with presbyopia may be extraocular (corneal or scleral) or intraocular (removal and replacement of the crystalline lens or some type of treatment on the crystalline lens itself). There are however a number of limitations and considerations that have limited the widespread acceptance of surgical correction of presbyopia. Each surgical strategy presents its own unique set of advantages and disadvantages. For example, lens removal and replacement with an intraocular lens may not be preferable in a young patient with presbyopia without a refractive error. Similarly treatment on the crystalline lens may not be a suitable choice for a patient with early signs of cataract. This article is a review of the options available and those that are in development stages and are likely to be available in the near future for the surgical correction of presbyopia.

A randomised controlled trial of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system in primary care against standard treatment for menorrhagia:the ECLIPSE trial

BACKGROUND: Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is a common problem, yet evidence to inform decisions about initial medical treatment is limited. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) (Mirena(®), Bayer) compared with usual medical treatment, with exploration of women's perspectives on treatment. DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentre randomised trial with an economic evaluation and a longitudinal qualitative study. SETTING: Women who presented in primary care. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 571 women with HMB. A purposeful sample of 27 women who were randomised or ineligible owing to treatment preference participated in semistructured face-to-face interviews around 2 and 12 months after commencing treatment. INTERVENTIONS: LNG-IUS or usual medical treatment (tranexamic acid, mefenamic acid, combined oestrogen-progestogen or progesterone alone). Women could subsequently swap or cease their allocated treatment. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the patient-reported score on the Menorrhagia Multi-Attribute Scale (MMAS) assessed over a 2-year period and then again at 5 years. Secondary outcomes included general quality of life (QoL), sexual activity, surgical intervention and safety. Data were analysed using iterative constant comparison. A state transition model-based cost-utility analysis was undertaken alongside the randomised trial. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were derived from the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) and the Short Form questionnaire-6 Dimensions (SF-6D). The intention-to-treat analyses were reported as cost per QALY gained. Uncertainty was explored by conducting both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The MMAS total scores improved significantly in both groups at all time points, but were significantly greater for the LNG-IUS than for usual treatment [mean difference over 2 years was 13.4 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) 9.9 to 16.9 points; p < 0.001]. However, this difference between groups was reduced and no longer significant by 5 years (mean difference in scores 3.9 points, 95% CI -0.6 to 8.3 points; p = 0.09). By 5 years, only 47% of women had a LNG-IUS in place and 15% were still taking usual medical treatment. Five-year surgery rates were low, at 20%, and were similar, irrespective of initial treatments. There were no significant differences in serious adverse events between groups. Using the EQ-5D, at 2 years, the relative cost-effectiveness of the LNG-IUS compared with usual medical treatment was £1600 per QALY, which by 5 years was reduced to £114 per QALY. Using the SF-6D, usual medical treatment dominates the LNG-IUS. The qualitative findings show that women's experiences and expectations of medical treatments for HMB vary considerably and change over time. Women had high expectations of a prompt effect from medical treatments. CONCLUSIONS: The LNG-IUS, compared with usual medical therapies, resulted in greater improvement over 2 years in women's assessments of the effect of HMB on their daily routine, including work, social and family life, and psychological and physical well-being. At 5 years, the differences were no longer significant. A similar low proportion of women required surgical intervention in both groups. The LNG-IUS is cost-effective in both the short and medium term, using the method generally recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Using the alternative measures to value QoL will have a considerable impact on cost-effectiveness decisions. It will be important to explore the clinical and health-care trajectories of the ECLIPSE (clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system in primary care against standard treatment for menorrhagia) trial participants to 10 years, by which time half of the cohort will have reached menopause. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN86566246. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 88. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Randomised trial of levonorgestrel intrauterine system compared to usual medical treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding:the ECLIPSE Trial

Objective: Heavy menstrual bleeding (menorrhagia) is a common problem, yet evidence is limited to inform therapeutic decisions.We compared the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system(LNG-IUS) to usual medical treatment in a pragmatic randomised trial in primary care. Methods: We randomly assigned 571 women consulting their primary care providers with menorrhagia to LNG-IUS or to usual medical treatment as clinically appropriate (tranexamic acid, mefenamic acid, combined estrogen/progestogen or progestogen only). The primary outcome was a patient-reported measure ofimpact of menorrhagia, the validated Menorrhagia Multi-Attribute Scale (MMAS), assessed over 2 years. Secondary measures included generic quality of life (SF-36), sexual activity and surgical intervention.Results MMAS scores improved from baseline in both the LNG-IUS and usual medical treatment groups by 6 months (mean increases 32.7 points versus 21.4 points, respectively; P < 0.001for both) and were maintained over 2 years, but improvements were significantly greater with LNG-IUS (mean between-group difference 13.4 points, 95%CI, 9.9–16.9; P < 0.001).All domains of MMAS (practical difficulties, social life, family life,work/daily routine, psychological well being and physical health)improved significantly more with LNG-IUS, as were seven of the eight domains of SF-36. More women were still using LNG-IUSthan usual medical treatment at 2 years (64% versus 38%,P < 0.001). There were no significant between-group differences in surgical intervention rates or sexual activity scores. There were no serious adverse events in either group.Conclusions Among women presenting to primary care providers with menorrhagia, LNG-IUS was more effective than usual medical treatment at reducing the impact of this problem on their quality of life. In practice therefore, conventional treatments, such as tranexamic and mefenamic acid, remain helpful choices in women for whom LNG-IUS is considered unsuitable, or due to individual preference. For other women, LNG-IUS can be confidently recommended as an effective initial medical therapy for menorrhagia. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment (NIHR HTA) Programme (project number 02/06/02)