Sight Sciences has released results from a comprehensive cost-utility analysis demonstrating that the TearCare System offers significant cost savings and improved patient outcomes compared to cyclosporine 0.05% for treating moderate to severe meibomian gland disease (MGD) associated dry eye disease. The analysis, published ahead of print in Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, provides compelling evidence for the economic and clinical benefits of interventional dry eye therapy.
Economic Advantages Drive Healthcare Value
The cost-utility analysis, conducted from a US healthcare payer perspective using a one-year time horizon, revealed substantial economic benefits for TearCare. The system resulted in lower per-patient annual costs of $4,916 compared to cyclosporine's $5,819, translating to annual cost savings of $903 per patient. Additionally, TearCare demonstrated superior health outcomes with 0.76 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) versus 0.74 QALYs for cyclosporine treatment.
"TearCare not only improves patient outcomes but also represents a more economically sustainable approach to managing MGD-associated dry eye disease," said Nathan Lighthizer, OD, FAAO, lead investigator of the study and Professor and Dean for the NSU Oklahoma College of Optometry. "The demonstrated cost savings of over $900 per patient per year are significant in our current healthcare environment."
Clinical Efficacy Through Innovative Technology
TearCare operates through localized heat therapy delivered via a flexible design that allows patients to blink naturally during treatment. The system features Thermal-Activated Restorative Gland Expression Therapy (TARGET) technology, which addresses the root cause of dry eye by restoring natural meibomian gland function rather than merely managing symptoms.
The analysis assumed two TearCare procedures over the one-year study period, with patients experiencing an incremental QALY gain of 0.014 compared to those receiving cyclosporine therapy. This improvement in quality-adjusted outcomes, combined with the cost reduction, positions TearCare as a dominant treatment strategy from both clinical and economic perspectives.
Robust Analysis Confirms Consistent Benefits
Scenario analyses conducted as part of the study confirmed the robustness of the primary findings. Even when researchers adjusted key assumptions, including the proportion of patients improving to milder disease states, TearCare consistently delivered cost savings and greater QALY gains compared to cyclosporine treatment. This consistency across different modeling scenarios strengthens confidence in the real-world applicability of the results.
Paul Badawi, Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer of Sight Sciences, emphasized the broader implications of these findings: "We are excited to see such compelling evidence that highlights both the clinical and cost benefits of TearCare. Our body of clinical data and health economic support for TearCare continues to grow, and this latest analysis builds upon the foundation we have already established."
Strategic Implications for Dry Eye Management
The study's findings support a shift toward interventional approaches in dry eye treatment, particularly for patients with MGD-associated disease. The TearCare System's 510(k) clearance in the United States for localized heat therapy in adult patients with evaporative dry eye disease due to MGD positions it as an evidence-based alternative to traditional pharmaceutical approaches.
The research team included investigators from NSU Oklahoma College of Optometry, Dry Eye Center of Alabama, Cleveland Eye Clinic, and AESARA, Inc., providing diverse clinical perspectives on the comparative effectiveness analysis. Their collaborative approach strengthens the validity of the economic modeling and clinical assumptions underlying the cost-utility analysis.
