Cost-Effective and Clinically Superior: TearCare Outperforms Cyclosporine in Treating Dry Eye Disease

Sight Sciences' TearCare system is more cost-effective and offers greater health utility compared to cyclosporine 0.05% for treating meibomian gland disease-associated dry eye disease. A cost-utility analysis showed that TearCare resulted in lower per-patient annual costs and higher quality-adjusted life years than cyclosporine. This translates to cost savings of over $900 per patient per year. The analysis confirms that TearCare is a more economically sustainable approach to managing MGD-associated dry eye disease.

Sight Sciences, Inc. (Nasdaq: SGHT) has recently announced the results of a cost-utility analysis (CUA) that highlights the cost-effectiveness and superior health utility of its TearCare® System compared to cyclosporine 0.05% (CsA) for the treatment of moderate to severe meibomian gland disease (MGD) associated with dry eye disease (DED). The analysis, published ahead of print in Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, found that TearCare resulted in significant cost savings and higher quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared to CsA.

The CUA, conducted from a US healthcare payer perspective using a 1-year time horizon, revealed that TearCare resulted in lower per-patient annual costs ($4,916) and higher QALYs (0.76) compared to CsA ($5,819 and 0.74 QALYs, respectively). This translated to per-patient annual cost savings of $903 and an incremental benefit of 0.014 QALYs [1].

The analysis also found that patients receiving TearCare experienced an incremental QALY gain of 0.014 compared to those on CsA. Scenario analyses confirmed the robustness of the results, showing that even when adjusting assumptions, TearCare consistently delivered cost savings and greater QALY gains over CsA [1].

In addition to the cost-utility analysis, Sight Sciences has published the 24-month results of the SAHARA randomized controlled trial (RCT), which further validates the clinical benefits of the TearCare System. The results demonstrate the durability, repeatability, and significant clinical benefits of treatment with TearCare in a landmark device versus drug RCT [2].

These findings suggest that TearCare is not only more cost-effective but also offers greater health utility, making it a more economically sustainable approach to managing MGD-associated dry eye disease. The demonstrated cost savings of over $900 per patient per year are significant in the current healthcare environment.

References:
[1] https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2025/07/30/3123898/0/en/Sight-Sciences-Announces-the-Results-of-a-Cost-Utility-Analysis-Demonstrating-Cost-Savings-and-Greater-Health-Utility-with-the-TearCare-System-Compared-to-Cyclosporine-0-05-for-Tre.html
[2] https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2025/07/29/3123086/0/en/Sight-Sciences-Announces-the-Publication-of-the-24-Month-Results-of-the-SAHARA-RCT-Demonstrating-the-Durability-of-the-TearCare-Procedure-for-the-Treatment-of-Dry-Eye-Disease.html