Cost-effectiveness analysis of ocriplasmin versus watchful waiting for treatment of symptomatic vitreomacular adhesion in the US.

Aim: Evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ocriplasmin in symptomatic vitreomacular adhesion (VMA) with or without full-thickness macular hole ≤400 µm versus standard of care. Methods: A state-transition model simulated a cohort through disease health states; assignment of utilities to health states reflected the distribution of visual acuity. Efficacy of ocriplasmin was derived from logistic regression models using Ocriplasmin for Treatment for Symptomatic Vitreomacular Adhesion Including Macular Hole trial data. Model inputs were extracted from Phase III trials and published literature. The analysis was conducted from a US Medicare perspective. Results: Lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was US$4887 per quality-adjusted life year gained in the total population, US$4255 and US$10,167 in VMA subgroups without and with full-thickness macular hole, respectively. Conclusion: Ocriplasmin was cost effective compared with standard of care in symptomatic VMA.

Updated Cost-Effectiveness of Intravitreal Ocriplasmin for Vitreomacular Adhesion and Macular Hole.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to provide an updated assessment of cost-efficacy of intravitreal ocriplasmin (IVO) for vitreomacular adhesion (VMA) and macular holes (MH). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a single-center, multiple-physician, institutional review board-approved, retrospective, 15-month cost-effectiveness analysis study (January 2015 to April 2016). Clinical charts and billing records of 247 patients with VMA and MH were reviewed. Patients were divided into group 1 (VMA and MH treated by pars plana vitrectomy [PPV]), group 2 (VMA and MH treated by IVO), and group 3 (VMA treated by IVO). Success rates of interventions in each group were compared, including cost-effectiveness, cost per line-year, and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). RESULTS: Success rates for initial intervention were 98% in group 1, 55.6% in group 2, and 67.7% in group 3. Cost of PPV at our institution was $6,538.00 and cost of IVO (2016) was $3,480.00. Using a cohort-based computer Markov model, the treatment decision tree demonstrated group 1 was less cost-effective, with cost per line of $2,654.39, cost per line-year saved of $185.62, and cost per QALY of $6,187.00. Group 2 was cost-effective with cost per line of $2,456.25, cost per line-year saved of $171.77, and cost per QALY of $5,726.00. The difference in cost-effectiveness showed IVO was more cost-effective than PPV, with a difference in cost per line of $198.14, cost per line-year saved of $13.85, and cost per QALY of $461.00. CONCLUSIONS: IVO is a more cost-effective intervention than vitrectomy for the treatment of VMA and MH in the setting of judicious use in appropriate patients. The success rate of IVO in our patient population was greater than currently published rates and most certainly impacted probability of cost-efficacy. Further research targeting optimizing IVO success rate is needed. [Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2018;49:e240-e248.].

Budget impact analysis of ocriplasmin for the treatment of symptomatic vitreomacular adhesion in the USA.

BACKGROUND: Vitreomacular traction (VMT) treatment options include watchful waiting, vitrectomy and intravitreal ocriplasmin injection (Jetrea®). This analysis used results from the recently completed OASIS randomized clinical trial to evaluate the 2-year budget impact of ocriplasmin injection availability for treatment of Stage I or II VMT without epiretinal membrane formation in a modeled US health plan. MATERIALS & METHODS: VMT prevalence, treatment patterns and disease resolution rates were from literature, a US retinal-specialist survey and the OASIS trial. Medicare payment rates were applied and a national scenario analysis was conducted. RESULTS: With ocriplasmin available, vitrectomy use and complications-related costs decreased. Budget impact of ocriplasmin to the health plan was US$143,599 over 2 years or US$0.0060 per-member per-month. CONCLUSION: Ocriplasmin was projected to be minimally cost-additive at US$0.0060 per-member per-month over 2 years.

Review of economic studies and budget impact analysis of ocriplasmin as a treatment of vitreomacular traction. / Revisión de estudios económicos y análisis de impacto presupuestario de la ocriplasmina como tratamiento de la tracción vitreomacular.

OBJECTIVE: To review the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of ocriplasmin as a treatment for vitreomacular traction (VMT), and to estimate the impact on the Spanish National Health System (NHS). MATERIAL AND METHODS: 1) Systematic review. The following databases were searched in January 2015: MEDLINE, PREMEDLINE, EMBASE, CRD, the Cochrane Library, and key websites. Selection criteria were: full economic evaluations that compared ocriplasmin with usual care ('watch and wait' and/or vitrectomy) in patients with VMT. The outcomes to extract were costs of the alternatives and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Studies of budget impact analysis were also included. The methodological quality was assessed, and a narrative synthesis of the included studies was carried out. 2) Estimation of budget impact. The impact on the budget as a result of the introduction of ocriplasmin in the NHS was estimated, including data from different sources. RESULTS: Six studies were identified, none of them performed in Spain. The two best studies concluded that ocriplasmin is cost-effective in their respective countries (Canada and United Kingdom), but only in patients with certain conditions (without epiretinal membrane, for example). The results of the budget impact analysis are different between countries. The analysis for Spain showed that the introduction of ocriplasmin would mean a saving over 1 million Euros for the NHS in 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: The cost-effectiveness of ocriplasmin has not been demonstrated in Spain. However, good studies performed in other countries found that ocriplasmin is cost-effective in selected patients. Given the current prices in Spain, ocriplasmin could involve a saving for the Spanish NHS.

Cost evaluation of surgical and pharmaceutical options in treatment for vitreomacular adhesions and macular holes.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate cost-effectiveness and cost utilities for treatment options for vitreomacular adhesions (VMAs) and full-thickness macular holes (MHs). DESIGN: A Markov model of cost-effectiveness and utility. PARTICIPANTS: There were no participants. METHODS: Outcomes of published clinical trials (index studies) of surgical treatment of VMAs and MHs and a prospective, multicenter clinical trial of pharmaceutical vitreolysis with intravitreal ocriplasmin with saline control were used to generate a model for costs of treatment and visual benefits. All techniques were assumed to result in a 2.5-line visual benefit if anatomy was resolved. Markov analysis, with cost data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, was used to calculate imputed costs for each primary treatment modality in a facility setting, with surgery performed in a hospital serving as the highest end of the range and nonfacility setting with surgery performed in an ambulatory surgery center serving as the lowest end of the range. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Imputed costs of therapy, cost per line saved, cost per line-year saved, cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). RESULTS: When pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) was selected as the primary procedure, the overall imputed cost ranged from $5802 to $7931. The cost per line was $2368 to $3237, the cost per line-year saved was $163 to $233 and the cost per QALY was $5444 to $7442. If intravitreal injection of ocriplasmin was the primary procedure, the overall imputed cost was $8767 to $10 977. The cost per line ranged from $3549 to $4456, the cost per line-year saved was $245 to $307, and the cost per QALY was between $8159 and $10 244. If intravitreal saline injection was used as a primary procedure, the overall imputed cost was $5828 to $8098. The cost per line was $2374 to $3299, the cost per line-year saved was $164 to $227, and the cost per QALY was $5458 to $7583. CONCLUSIONS: As a primary procedure, PPV was the most cost-effective therapy in this model. The other treatments had similar costs per QALY saved and compare favorably with costs of therapy for other retinal diseases.

Outcomes of 4 methods of debridement using a decision analysis methodology.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical efficacy of 4 debridement alternatives in pressure ulcer management. DESIGN: Nonexperimental design combining computer modeling and a decision analysis methodology. Data input into the model were derived from a literature review of the MEDLINE database for the years 1985 to 1995 (indexing terms: pressure ulcer, decubitus, economics, cost-effectiveness, and outcome) and a Delphi consensus process with an independent panel of 9 specialists in geriatric care. SETTING: Long-term care. PATIENTS: Hypothetical elderly female resident with a new full-thickness pressure ulcer (mild odor, minimal draining, no undermining, intact periulcer skin). INTERVENTIONS: The study patient underwent 1 month of therapy with each of 4 debridement methods: autolysis, wet-to-dry dressings, collagenase (Santyl) or fibrinolysin (Elase). MAIN OUTCOME: Specific clinical outcomes (time to clean wound bed, risk of infection) and relative cost-effectiveness of each debridement method were calculated. RESULTS: The likelihood of achieving a clean wound bed at 2 weeks was 70% for collagenase, 57% for fibrinolysin, 50% for autolysis, and 30% for wet-to-dry dressings. The total cost for 1 month of treatment was $610.96 for collagenase, $920.73 for autolysis, $986.38 for fibrinolysin, and $1,008.72 for wet-to-dry dressings. CONCLUSIONS: The study patient was most likely to have a clean wound bed after 2 and 4 weeks of treatment, less likely to need to switch debridement methods, and of equal or less likelihood of experiencing and infection and subsequent hospitalization when her wound was debrided with collagenase. Treatment with collagenase also resulted in the lowest total cost of treatment. Longer term, prospective studies using actual utilization data are needed to refine these estimates of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of each product.