Core Insights - The cost-utility analysis (CUA) indicates that the TearCare System is more cost-effective and offers better health utility compared to cyclosporine 0.05% (CsA) for treating moderate to severe meibomian gland disease (MGD) associated dry eye disease (DED) [1][2][3] Cost-Effectiveness Analysis - TearCare resulted in lower annual costs of $4,916 per patient compared to $5,819 for CsA, leading to annual cost savings of $903 [2][8] - TearCare also provided a higher quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of 0.76 versus 0.74 for CsA, translating to an incremental benefit of 0.014 QALYs [2][8] Clinical and Economic Implications - The analysis supports the notion that TearCare not only enhances patient outcomes but also represents a more economically sustainable approach to managing MGD-associated DED, with significant cost savings noted [3][5] - The findings are expected to bolster efforts to increase patient access to interventional dry eye therapies like TearCare [5] Robustness of Results - Scenario analyses confirmed the robustness of the results, showing consistent cost savings and greater QALY gains for TearCare even with varying assumptions [8]