Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Drugs Compared With Panretinal Photocoagulation for the Treatment of Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor drugs (anti-VEGFs) compared with panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) for treating proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) in the United Kingdom. METHODS: A discrete event simulation model was developed, informed by individual participant data meta-analysis. The model captures treatment effects on best corrected visual acuity in both eyes, and the occurrence of diabetic macular edema and vitreous hemorrhage. The model also estimates the value of undertaking further research to resolve decision uncertainty. RESULTS: Anti-VEGFs are unlikely to generate clinically meaningful benefits over PRP. The model predicted anti-VEGFs be more costly and similarly effective as PRP, generating 0.029 fewer quality-adjusted life-years at an additional cost of £3688, with a net health benefit of -0.214 at a £20 000 willingness-to-pay threshold. Scenario analysis results suggest that only under very select conditions may anti-VEGFs offer potential for cost-effective treatment of PDR. The consequences of loss to follow-up were an important driver of model outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Anti-VEGFs are unlikely to be a cost-effective treatment for early PDR compared with PRP. Anti-VEGFs are generally associated with higher costs and similar health outcomes across various scenarios. Although anti-VEGFs were associated with lower diabetic macular edema rates, the number of cases avoided is insufficient to offset the additional treatment costs. Key uncertainties relate to the long-term comparative effectiveness of anti-VEGFs, particularly considering the real-world rates and consequences of treatment nonadherence. Further research on long-term visual acuity and rates of vision-threatening complications may be beneficial in resolving uncertainties.

[Pharmacoeconomic analysis of anti-angiogenic drugs for diabetic macular edema]. / Farmakoekonomicheskii analiz primeneniya antiangiogennykh preparatov pri diabeticheskom makulyarnom oteke.

Diabetic macular edema (DME) is a degenerative disease of the macular area in diabetes mellitus and can lead to vision loss, disability, and significantly reduced quality of life. Faricimab is the only bispecific antibody for DME therapy that targets two pathogenic pathways (Ang-2 and VEGF-A). PURPOSE: This study comparatively evaluates the clinical and economic feasibility of faricimab and other angiogenesis inhibitors in patients with DME. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This article analyzed literature on the efficacy and safety of intravitreal injections (IVI) of ranibizumab 0.5 mg, aflibercept 2 mg, and faricimab 6 mg. A model of medical care was developed for patients with DME receiving anti-angiogenic therapy. Pharmacoeconomic analysis was performed using cost minimization and budget impact analysis (BIA) methods. Modeling time horizon was 2 years. The research was performed from the perspective of the healthcare system of the Russian Federation. RESULTS: The efficacy and safety of faricimab in a personalized regimen (up to one IVI in 16 weeks) are comparable to those of aflibercept and ranibizumab, administered in various regimens. The use of faricimab is associated with the lowest number of IVIs. Over 2 years, the maximum costs of drug therapy were associated with the use of ranibizumab (about 914 thousand rubles), while the minimum costs were associated with the use of faricimab (614 thousand rubles). The reduction in inpatient care costs with faricimab therapy was 36% compared to aflibercept (216 and 201 thousand rubles in inpatient and day hospitals, respectively) and 82% compared to ranibizumab (486 and 451 thousand rubles in inpatient and day hospitals, respectively). BIA demonstrated that the use of faricimab will reduce the economic burden on the healthcare system by 11.3 billion rubles (9.8%) over 2 years. CONCLUSION: The use of faricimab is a cost-effective approach to treatment of adult patients with DME in Russia.

Cost-effectiveness of fluocinolone acetonide implant (ILUVIEN®) in UK patients with chronic diabetic macular oedema considered insufficiently responsive to available therapies.

BACKGROUND: Diabetic macular oedema (DMO) may lead to visual loss and blindness. Several pharmacological treatments are available on the National Health Service (NHS) to United Kingdom patients affected by this condition, including intravitreal vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors (anti-VEGFs) and two types of intravitreal steroid implants, releasing dexamethasone or fluocinolone acetonide (FAc). This study aimed to assess the value for money (cost-effectiveness) of the FAc 0.2 µg/day implant (ILUVIEN®) in patients with chronic DMO considered insufficiently responsive to other therapies. METHODS: We developed a Markov model with a 15-year time horizon to estimate the impact of changes in best-corrected visual acuity in DMO patients on costs and quality-adjusted life years. The model considered both eyes, designated as the "study eye", defined at model entry as phakic with an ongoing cataract formation or pseudophakic, and the "fellow eye". The model compared the FAc 0.2 µg/day implant with a 700 µg dexamethasone implant (pseudophakic patients only) or with usual care, defined as a mixture of laser photocoagulation and anti-VEGFs (phakic and pseudophakic patients). Costs were estimated from the perspective of the NHS and Personal Social Services; full NHS prices were used for drugs. RESULTS: In patients who were pseudophakic at baseline, at 36 months, the FAc implant provided an additional gain of 4.01 and 3.64 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters compared with usual care and the dexamethasone implant, respectively. Over the 15-year time horizon, this translated into 0.185 additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at an extra cost of £3066 compared with usual care, and 0.126 additional QALYs at an extra cost of £1777 compared with dexamethasone. Thus, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were £16,609 and £14,070 per QALY gained vs. usual care and dexamethasone, respectively. In patients who were phakic at baseline, the FAc 0.2 µg/day implant provided an additional gain of 2.96 ETDRS letters at 36 months compared with usual care, which, over 15 years, corresponded to 0.11 additional QALYs at an extra cost of £3170, resulting in an ICER of £28,751 per QALY gained. CONCLUSION: The FAc 0.2 µg/day implant provided good value for money compared with other established treatments, especially in pseudophakic patients.

Cost of diabetic retinopathy and macular oedema in a population, an eight year follow up.

BACKGROUND: Prospective, population-based study of an 8-year follow up. To determine the direct cost of diabetic retinopathy [DR], evaluating our screening programme and the cost of treating DR, focusing on diabetic macular oedema [DMO] after anti-vascular endothelial growth factor [anti-VEGF] treatment. METHODS: A total of 15,396 diabetes mellitus [DM] patients were studied. We determined the cost-effectiveness of our screening programme against an annual programme by applying the Markov simulation model. We also compared the cost-effectiveness of anti-VEGF treatment to laser treatment for screened patients with DMO. RESULTS: The cost of our 2.5-year screening programme was as follows: per patient with any-DR, €482.85 ± 35.14; per sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy [STDR] patient, €1528.26 ± 114.94; and €1826.98 ± 108.26 per DMO patient. Comparatively, an annual screening programme would result in increases as follows: 0.77 in QALY per patient with any-DR and 0.6 and 0.44 per patient with STDR or DMO, respectively, with an incremental cost-effective ratio [ICER] of €1096.88 for any-DR, €4571.2 for STDR and €7443.28 per DMO patient. Regarding diagnosis and treatment, the mean annual total cost per patient with DMO was €777.09 ± 49.45 for the laser treated group and €7153.62 ± 212.15 for the anti-VEGF group, with a QALY gain of 0.21, the yearly mean cost was €7153.62 ± 212.15 per patient, and the ICER was €30,361. CONCLUSIONS: Screening for diabetic retinopathy every 2.5 years is cost-effective, but should be adjusted to a patient's personal risk factors. Treatment with anti-VEGF for DMO has increased costs, but the cost-utility increases to 0.21 QALY per patient.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Ranibizumab for the Treatment of Diabetic Macular Edema.

PURPOSE: To assess the incremental, comparative effectiveness (patient value gain) and cost effectiveness (financial value gain) associated with 0.3-mg intravitreal ranibizumab injection therapy versus sham therapy for diabetic macular edema (DME). DESIGN: Value-Based Medicine (Center for Value-Based Medicine, Flourtown, PA) 14-year, cost-utility analysis using patient preferences and 2012 United States real dollars. PARTICIPANTS: Published data from the identical Ranibizumab Injection in Subjects with Clinically Significant Macular Edema with Center Involvement Secondary to Diabetes Mellitus (RISE and RIDE) clinical trials. METHODS: An incremental cost-utility analysis was performed using societal and third-party insurer cost perspectives. Costs and outcomes were discounted with net present value analysis at 3% per annum. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The incremental comparative effectiveness was measured in: (1) quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gain and (2) percent patient value (quality-of-life) gain. Cost effectiveness was quantified with the cost-utility ratio (CUR) measured as $/QALY. RESULTS: The 14-year, incremental patient value gain conferred by intravitreal ranibizumab therapy for diabetic maculopathy was 0.9981 QALY, equating to an 11.6% improvement in quality of life. The direct, ophthalmic medical cost for ranibizumab therapy in 1 eye was $30 116, whereas for 2 eyes it was $56 336. The direct, nonophthalmic, medical costs saved from decreased depression, injury, skilled nursing facility admissions, nursing home admissions, and other vision-associated costs totaled $51 758, resulting in an overall direct medical cost of $4578. The net mean societal cost for bilateral ranibizumab therapy was -$30 807. Of this total, decreased caregiver costs accrued a $31 406 savings against the direct medical costs, whereas decreased wage losses accrued a $3978 savings. The third-party insurer CUR for bilateral ranibizumab therapy was $4587/QALY. The societal cost perspective for bilateral therapy was -$30 807/QALY, indicating that ranibizumab therapy dominated sham therapy because it conferred both a positive QALY gain of 0.9981 and a financial value gain (positive financial return on investment) of $30 807 referent to the direct ophthalmic medical costs expended. CONCLUSIONS: Intravitreal ranibizumab therapy for the treatment of DME confers considerable patient (human) value gain. It also accrues financial value to patients, public and private insurers, and society.

Comparing the effectiveness and costs of Bevacizumab to Ranibizumab in patients with Diabetic Macular Edema: a randomized clinical trial (the BRDME study).

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of ranibizumab in the treatment of diabetic macular edema has been proven with large clinical trials. For bevacizumab only two clinical trials have been published and a head-to-head comparison is lacking to date. However, if proved non-inferior to ranibizumab, use of the off-label bevacizumab could reduce costs enormously without a loss in visual acuity. A cost-effectiveness study has been designed to substantiate this hypothesis. AIM: To compare the effectiveness and costs of 1.25 mg of bevacizumab to 0.5 mg ranibizumab given as monthly intravitreal injections during 6 months in patients with diabetic macular edema. It is hypothesized that bevacizumab is non-inferior to ranibizumab regarding its effectiveness. DESIGN: This is a randomized, controlled, double masked, clinical trial in 246 patients in seven academic trial centres in The Netherlands. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome measure is the change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) in the study eye from baseline to month 6. Secondary outcomes are the proportions of patients with a gain or loss of 15 letters or more or a BCVA of 20/40 or more at 6 months, the change in leakage on fluorescein angiography and the change in foveal thickness by optical coherence tomography at 6 months, the number of adverse events in 6 months, and the costs per quality adjusted life-year of the two treatments.

An eye on equity: faricimab-driven health equity improvements in diabetic macular oedema using a distributional cost-effectiveness analysis from a UK societal perspective.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Diabetic macular oedema (DMO) is a leading cause of blindness in developed countries, with significant disease burden associated with socio-economic deprivation. Distributional cost-effectiveness analysis (DCEA) allows evaluation of health equity impacts of interventions, estimation of how health outcomes and costs are distributed in the population, and assessments of potential trade-offs between health maximisation and equity. We conducted an aggregate DCEA to determine the equity impact of faricimab. METHODS: Data on health outcomes and costs were derived from a cost-effectiveness model of faricimab compared with ranibizumab, aflibercept and off-label bevacizumab using a societal perspective in the base case and a healthcare payer perspective in scenario analysis. Health gains and health opportunity costs were distributed across socio-economic subgroups. Health and equity impacts, measured using the Atkinson inequality index, were assessed visually on an equity-efficiency impact plane and combined into a measure of societal welfare. RESULTS: At an opportunity cost threshold of £20,000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY), faricimab displayed an increase in net health benefits against all comparators and was found to improve equity. The equity impact increased the greater the concerns for reducing health inequalities over maximising population health. Using a healthcare payer perspective, faricimab was equity improving in most scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: Long-acting therapies with fewer injections, such as faricimab, may reduce costs, improve health outcomes and increase health equity. Extended economic evaluation frameworks capturing additional value elements, such as DCEA, enable a more comprehensive valuation of interventions, which is of relevance to decision-makers, healthcare professionals and patients.

A health economic pilot study comparing two diabetic retinopathy screening strategies.

To compare two screening strategies for diabetic retinopathy (DR), and to determine the health-economic impact of including optical coherence tomography (OCT) in a regular DR screening. This cross-sectional study included a cohort of patients (≥ 18 years) with type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus (T1D or T2D) from a pilot DR screening program at Oslo University Hospital, Norway. A combined screening strategy where OCT was performed in addition to fundus photography for all patients, was conducted on this cohort and compared to our existing sequential screening strategy. In the sequential screening strategy, OCT was performed on a separate day only if fundus photography indicated diabetic macular edema (DME). The presence of diabetic maculopathy on fundus photography and DME on OCT was determined by two medical retina specialists. Based on the prevalence rate of diabetic maculopathy and DME from the pilot, we determined the health-economic impact of the two screening strategies. The study included 180 eyes of 90 patients. Twenty-seven eyes of 18 patients had diabetic maculopathy, and of these, 7 eyes of 6 patients revealed DME on OCT. When diabetic maculopathy was absent on fundus photographs, OCT could not reveal DME. Accordingly, 18 patients (20%) with diabetic maculopathy would have needed an additional examination with OCT in the sequential screening strategy, 6 (33%) of whom would have had DME on OCT. In an extended healthcare perspective analysis, the cost of the sequential screening strategy was higher than the cost of the combined screening strategy. There was a weak association between diabetic maculopathy on fundus photography and DME on OCT. The health economic analysis suggests that including OCT as a standard test in DR screening could potentially be cost-saving.

Cost-effectiveness of various interventions for newly diagnosed diabetic macular edema.

OBJECTIVE: Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapies have revolutionized the treatment of clinically significant diabetic macular edema (CSDME); yet these agents are expensive, and whether they are cost-effective is unclear. The purpose of this study is to determine the most cost-effective treatment option for patients with newly diagnosed CSDME: focal laser photocoagulation alone (L), focal laser plus intravitreal ranibizumab (L+R), focal laser plus intravitreal bevacizumab (L+B), or focal laser plus intravitreal triamcinolone (L+T) injections. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis. PARTICIPANTS: Hypothetical cohort of 57-year-old patients with newly diagnosed CSDME. METHODS: By using a Markov model with a 25-year time horizon, we compared the incremental cost-effectiveness of treating patients with newly diagnosed CSDME using L, L+R, L+B, or L+T. Data came from the DRCRnet randomized controlled trial, the Medicare fee schedule, and the medical literature. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental costs per QALY gained. RESULTS: Compared with L, the incremental cost-effectiveness of L+R and L+B was $89903/QALY and $11138/QALY, respectively. L+T was dominated by L. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that, at a willingness to pay (WTP) of $50000/QALY, L was approximately 70% likely to be the preferred therapy over L+R and L+T. However, at a WTP of $100000/QALY, more than 90% of the time, L+R therapy was the preferred therapy compared with L and L+T. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, L+B was found to be the preferred therapy over L and L+T for any WTP value >$10000/QALY. Sensitivity analyses revealed that the annual risk of cerebrovascular accident would have to be at least 1.5% higher with L+B than with L+R for L+R to be the preferred treatment. In another sensitivity analysis, if patients require <8 injections per year over the remainder of the 25-year time horizon, L+B would cost <$100000/QALY, whereas L+R would be cost-effective at a WTP of $100000/QALY if patients require fewer than 0.45 injections per year after year 2. CONCLUSIONS: With bevacizumab and ranibizumab assumed to have equivalent effectiveness and similar safety profiles when used in the management of CSDME, bevacizumab therapy confers the greatest value among the different treatment options for CSDME. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.

Health state utilities in patients with diabetic retinopathy, diabetic macular oedema and age-related macular degeneration: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Health state utility values (HSUVs) are important in the assessment of the cost effectiveness of new interventions. In the case of visual conditions, models generally tend have tended to be built around a set of health states defined by visual acuity (VA). The aim of this review was to assess the impact of VA on HSUVs in patients with diabetic retinopathy, diabetic macular oedema or age-related macular degeneration. METHODS: A systematic literature search was undertaken in major bibliographic databases to identify articles reporting on the relationship between HSUVs and vision. Data were extracted for population characteristics, visual levels and estimated utilities. Evidence from reported statistical models, where available, was considered in the evaluation of vision in the better-seeing eye and the worse-seeing eye. Due to the heterogeneity of included studies, a narrative synthesis was undertaken. RESULTS: Of the 17 relevant studies, 9 studies had data that could be used in the analysis of the impact of vision on HSUVs. Visual loss was associated with a marked impact on health utilities. However, the relationship was not comparable between conditions or by measure of HSUVs. Key results included the finding that overall, self-rated time-trade off estimates were more likely to discriminate between different VA levels than EQ-5D values. Additionally, a stronger correlation was observed between HSUVs and better-seeing eye VA compared to worse-seeing eye VA. CONCLUSIONS: Visual acuity has a significant impact on HSUVs. Nevertheless, care must be taken in the interpretation and use of estimates in cost-effectiveness models due to differences in measures and population diversity.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of ranibizumab plus prompt or deferred laser or triamcinolone plus prompt laser for diabetic macular edema.

OBJECTIVE: Perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME) with ranibizumab plus prompt or deferred laser versus triamcinolone plus prompt laser. Data for the analysis were drawn from reports of the Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network (DRCRnet) Protocol I. DESIGN: Computer simulation based on Protocol I data. Analyses were conducted from the payor perspective. PARTICIPANTS: Simulated participants assigned characteristics reflecting those seen in Protocol I. METHODS: Markov models were constructed to replicate Protocol I's 104-week outcomes using a microsimulation approach to estimation. Baseline characteristics, visual acuity (VA), treatments, and complications were based on Protocol I data. Costs were identified by literature search. One-way sensitivity analysis was performed, and the results were validated against Protocol I data. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Direct cost of care for 2 years, change in VA from baseline, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) measured as cost per additional letter gained from baseline (Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study). RESULTS: For sham plus laser (S+L), ranibizumab plus prompt laser (R+pL), ranibizumab plus deferred laser (R+dL), and triamcinolone plus laser (T+L), effectiveness through 104 weeks was predicted to be 3.46, 7.07, 8.63, and 2.40 letters correct, respectively. The ICER values in terms of dollars per VA letter were $393 (S+L vs. T+L), $5943 (R+pL vs. S+L), and $20 (R+dL vs. R+pL). For pseudophakics, the ICER value for comparison triamcinolone with laser versus ranibizumab with deferred laser was $14 690 per letter gained. No clinically relevant changes in model variables altered outcomes. Internal validation demonstrated good similarity to Protocol I treatment patterns. CONCLUSIONS: In treatment of phakic patients with DME, ranibizumab with deferred laser provided an additional 6 letters correct compared with triamcinolone with laser at an additional cost of $19 216 over 2 years. That would indicate that if the gain in VA seen at 2 years is maintained in subsequent years, then the treatment of phakic patients with DME using ranibizumab may meet accepted standards of cost-effectiveness. For pseudophakic patients, first-line treatment with triamcinolone seems to be the most cost-effective option.

Clinical applications of cost analysis of diabetic macular edema treatments.

OBJECTIVE: To apply cost-benefit analyses in specific circumstances in which the results of multiple modalities of treating diabetic macular edema (DME) are similar, as a basis for considering economic ramifications in clinically relevant applications. DESIGN: A model of resource use, outcomes, and cost-effectiveness and utility. PARTICIPANTS: There were no participants. METHODS: Results from published clinical trials (index studies) of laser, intravitreal corticosteroids, intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents, and vitrectomy trials were used to ascertain visual benefit and clinical protocols of patients with DME. Calculations followed from the costs of 1 year of treatment for each modality and the visual benefits as ascertained. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Visual acuity (VA) saved, cost of therapy, cost per line saved, cost per line-year saved, and costs per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) saved. RESULTS: Four specific situations were observed or analyzed: (1) Treatment results for DME causing VA loss <20/200 show at least as much visual benefit for intravitreal triamcinolone (IVTA) versus laser; (2) a subgroup analysis of pseudophakic DME eyes shows equivalent visual results with anti-VEGF treatment versus laser combined with IVTA; (3) eyes with VA of ≥ 20/32 have been studied only by laser; and (4) less frequent use of aflibercept yields equivalent visual results as more frequent treatment. When the results are equivalent, opting for the less-expensive treatment option could yield cost savings of 40% to 88%. CONCLUSIONS: Cost-effectiveness analyses can be clinically relevant and may be considered when formulating and applying treatment strategies for some subsets of patients with DME. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.

Economic considerations of macular edema therapies.

PURPOSE: To relate costs and treatment benefits for diabetic macular edema (DME), branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO), and central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO). DESIGN: A model of resource use, outcomes, and cost-effectiveness and utility. PARTICIPANTS: None. METHODS: Results from published clinical trials (index studies) of laser, intravitreal corticosteroids, intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents, and vitrectomy trials were used to ascertain visual benefit and clinical protocols. Calculations followed from the costs of 1 year of treatment for each treatment modality and the visual benefits as ascertained. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Visual acuity (VA) saved, cost of therapy, cost per line saved, cost per line-year saved, and costs per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). RESULTS: The lines saved for DME (0.26-2.02), BRVO (0.74-4.92), and CRVO (1.2-3.75) yielded calculations of costs/line of saved VA for DME ($1329-$11,609), BRVO ($494-$13,039), and CRVO ($704-$7611); costs/line-year for DME ($60-$561), BRVO ($25-$754), and CRVO ($45-$473); and costs/QALY ($824 to $25,566). CONCLUSIONS: Relative costs and benefits should be considered in perspective when applying and developing treatment strategies.

Cost-effectiveness of dexamethasone and triamcinolone for the treatment of diabetic macular oedema in Finland: A Markov-model.

PURPOSE: Diabetic macular oedema (DMO), a complication of diabetes, causes vision loss and blindness. Corticosteroids are usually used as a second-line treatment. The aim of this study was to analyse the cost-effectiveness of dexamethasone implants compared to cheaper and more frequently applied triamcinolone injections. METHODS: Markov-modelling, which incorporated both eyes, was used for economic evaluation. The model consisted of five health states based on visual acuity, illustrating the progression of DMO. A cycle length of five months was chosen for dexamethasone and four months for triamcinolone. Time horizons of two and five years were applied. Transition probabilities and health state utilities were sourced from previous studies. The perspective used in this analysis was the hospital perspective. The health care costs were acquired from Kuopio University Hospital in Finland. RESULTS: In this cost-effectiveness analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ICER with 3% discount rate was €56 591/QALY for a two-year follow-up and -€1 110 942/QALY for a five-year follow-up. In order to consider dexamethasone as cost-effective over a 2-year time horizon, the WTP needs to be around €55 000/QALY. Over the five-year follow-up, triamcinolone is clearly a dominant treatment. Sensitivity analyses support the cost-effectiveness of dexamethasone over a 2-year time horizon. CONCLUSIONS: Since the sensitivity analyses support the results, dexamethasone would be a cost-effective treatment during the first two years with WTP threshold around €55 000/QALY, and triamcinolone would be a convenient treatment after that. This recommendation is in line with the guidelines of EURETINA.

Cost-Utility of Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Treatment for Macular Edema Secondary to Central Retinal Vein Occlusion.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the cost-utility of treatment for macular edema in central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) using intravitreal injections of the anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents bevacizumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept. DESIGN: Decision analysis model of cost-utility. PARTICIPANTS: Data from study participants in the Lucentis, Eylea, Avastin in Vein Occlusion (LEAVO) study. METHODS: A decision analysis of a disease simulation model was used to calculate comparative cost-utility of intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB), intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR), and intravitreal aflibercept (IVA) for the treatment of macular edema associated with CRVO based on data from the LEAVO study. Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services data were used to calculate associated modeled costs in a hospital- or facility-based and nonfacility setting from a third-party payer perspective, and societal costs also were calculated. Cost utility was calculated based on the preserved visual utility during the 2 years of the study and also by estimating utility for the expected lifetime. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost of treatment, cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: From the third-party payer perspective, the estimated lifetime costs per QALY in the facility and nonfacility settings were $39 325 and $17 944, respectively, for IVB; $114 095 and $92 653, respectively, for IVR; and $78 935 and $63 270, respectively, for IVA. From the societal perspective, the estimated lifetime costs per QALY in the facility setting were $52 754 for IVB, $128 242 for IVR, and $86 262 for IVA. The ICER of IVA compared with that of IVB was $153 633/QALY from the third-party facility setting and $152 992/QALY from the societal perspective. The use of IVB compared with IVR and IVA compared with IVR were cost-saving interventions (ICER, <0) regardless of the perspective or setting. CONCLUSIONS: In the treatment of macular edema in CRVO, IVB yields the best cost utility among the 3 anti-VEGF agents modeled. Intravitreal aflibercept maintains acceptable lifetime cost per QALY while having a favorable cost utility compared with IVR.

Real-World Injection Frequency and Cost of Ranibizumab and Aflibercept for the Treatment of Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration and Diabetic Macular Edema.

BACKGROUND: Ranibizumab and aflibercept are FDA-approved treatments for patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) and diabetic macular edema (DME). Although these agents differ in cost and labeled dosing, it is unclear whether these differences are reflected in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To compare the real-world frequency and cost of ranibizumab and aflibercept injections among treatment-naive and previously treated patients with nAMD and DME. METHODS: Claims data from MarketScan Research Databases were retrospectively reviewed to identify treatment-naive patients with nAMD who initiated intravitreal ranibizumab or aflibercept between January 1, 2014, and January 1, 2016, and treatment-naive patients with DME who initiated intravitreal ranibizumab or aflibercept between July 29, 2014, and July 1, 2016. Patients who switched to subsequent-line aflibercept or ranibizumab during the study period were eligible to enter previously treated subgroups. Multivariable regression models were derived to compare the per-patient frequency and cost of injections between ranibizumab- and aflibercept-treated patients with nAMD over 12 months (treatment-naive: n = 1,087 and n = 1,578; previously treated: n = 221 and n = 751) and 24 months (treatment-naive: n = 454 and n = 568; previously treated: n = 93 and n = 284) and in patients with DME over 6 months (treatment-naive: n = 507 and n = 681; previously treated: n = 53 and n = 223) and 12 months (treatment-naive: n = 326 and n = 382; previously treated: n = 24 and n = 122). RESULTS: After adjusting for patient demographics and clinical characteristics, per-patient injection frequency and cost were not significantly different between treatment-naive patients with nAMD who received ranibizumab versus aflibercept over 12 months (5.62 vs. 5.54; P = 0.52, and $11,351 vs. $10,702; P = 0.06, respectively) and 24 months (7.86 vs. 8.37; P = 0.16, and $16,286 vs. $16,666; P = 0.69, respectively). In previously treated patients with nAMD, injection frequency was significantly lower among ranibizumab- versus aflibercept-treated patients over 24 months (7.98 vs. 9.63; P = 0.03), whereas treatment costs were comparable over 12 months ($11,512 vs. $12,050; P = 0.44) and 24 months ($16,303 vs. $19,361; P = 0.13). In treatment-naive patients with DME, ranibizumab was associated with significantly fewer injections and lower costs than aflibercept over 6 months (2.60 vs. 2.92 and $3,379 vs. $5,925, respectively; both P < 0.001) and 12 months (3.33 vs. 3.87 and $4,136 vs. $7,656, respectively; both P < 0.001). Similar cost savings were observed among previously treated patients with DME who received ranibizumab over 6 months ($3,834 vs. $6,775 for aflibercept; P = 0.0001) and 12 months ($4,606 vs. $9,190; P = 0.02), despite nonsignificant differences in injection frequency during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Although the frequency and cost of ranibizumab and aflibercept injections were generally comparable among patients treated for nAMD, ranibizumab was associated with estimated per-patient-per-year cost savings of $3,500-$4,500 in those treated for DME. Most patients received fewer injections than any FDA-indicated dosing schedule, suggesting potential undertreatment that may result in suboptimal vision outcomes. DISCLOSURES: Study funding was provided by Genentech, a member of the Roche Group. The sponsor participated in the design of the study; collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation of the manuscript; and the decision to submit the article for publication. Kiss has been a consultant for and received honoraria from Alcon, Alimera, Allergan, BioMarin, Novartis, and Spark; has been on the advisory board for, a consultant for, received honoraria from, and held stock options in Adverum and Regenxbio; has been a consultant for, received honoraria from, and held stock/stock options in Fortress; has been on the advisory board for, a consultant and investigator for, and received grants and honoraria from Genentech and Regeneron; and has been on the advisory board for, a consultant for, and received grants and honoraria from Optos. Malangone-Monaco, Wilson, Varker, Stetsovsky, and Smith are employees of IBM Watson Health, which received funding from Genentech to undertake this study. Garmo is an employee of Genentech. Data reported in this manuscript were presented in part at the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (AMCP) Managed Care and Specialty Pharmacy Annual Meeting; April 23-26, 2018; Boston, MA.

[Budget impact of the incorporation of second-line drug treatment for diabetic macular edema in the Brazilian Unified National Health System from the perspective of the Minas Gerais State Health Department, Brazil]. / Impacto orçamentário da incorporação de medicamentos para tratamento em segunda linha do edema macular diabético no SUS sob a perspectiva da Secretaria de Estado de Saúde de Minas Gerais, Brasil.

The study's objective was to perform budget impact assessment for the incorporation of second-line intravitreal antiangiogenic therapy for diabatic macular edema in the scope of the Brazilian Unified National Health System (SUS) in Minas Gerais state, Brazil, discussing the incorporation's state budget feasibility. The budget impact assessment was performed as a deterministic method according to Ministry of Health guidelines. The study included patients with probable first-line treatment failure in a five-year timeline for all the technologies assessed. The analysis included the drugs bevacizumab (off-label use), ranibizumab, and aflibercept. The populations were calculated both by observed demand and epidemiological estimate. The following sensitivity analyses were performed: a scenario with slower technology diffusion, a scenario with the market entry of biosimilar versions of bevacizumab and ranibizumab, and a scenario disregarding inflation during the period. The incremental budget impacts according to observed and epidemiologically estimated demand, respectively, were BRL 69,493,906.95 to BRL 473,226,278.78 for bevacizumab; BRL 349,319,965.60 to BRL 2,378,732,103.09 for ranibizumab; and BRL 543,867,485.47 to BRL 3,703,524,490.16 for aflibercept. Bevacizumab proved to be the most financially feasible alternative in all the scenarios of estimates and sensitivity analyses. An increment of nearly 3% was estimated, compared to the 2016 budget (observed demand). The study showed that the incorporation is feasible in the SUS, Minas Gerais State, but subject to management priorities. Price discrepancies between products with similar efficacy is intriguing and provides fertile ground for future studies.

Os objetivos foram efetuar a análise do impacto orçamentário para a incorporação de segunda linha terapêutica com terapia antiangiogênica de aplicação intravítrea, para tratamento de edema macular diabético, no âmbito do Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS) em Minas Gerais, Brasil, discutindo sua viabilidade à luz do orçamento do estado. A análise do impacto orçamentário com método determinístico, segundo diretriz do Ministério da Saúde. Foram incluídos os pacientes com provável falha ao tratamento de primeira linha, num horizonte temporal de 5 anos para todas as tecnologias avaliadas. Incluíram-se na análise os medicamentos bevacizumabe (uso off-label), ranibizumabe e aflibercepte. As populações foram calculadas tanto por demanda aferida quanto por estimativa epidemiológica. Como análises de sensibilidade efetuaram-se: cenário com difusão de tecnologia mais lenta; cenário com a entrada de bevacizumabe e ranibizumabe biossimilares no mercado; cenário com a desconsideração da inflação no período. O impacto orçamentário incremental, de acordo com as estimativas de demanda aferida e epidemiológica, respectivamente, foi de R$ 69.493.906,95-R$ 473.226.278,78 para bevacizumabe; R$ 349.319.965,60-R$ 2.378.732.103,09 para ranibizumabe e R$543.867.485,47-R$ 3.703.524.490,16 para aflibercepte. Bevacizumabe foi a alternativa financeiramente mais viável em todos os cenários das estimativas e análises de sensibilidade. Estimou-se incremento próximo a 3%, comparando com o orçamento de 2016 (demanda aferida). Avalia-se que a incorporação é viável dentro do SUS em Minas Gerais, mas sujeita às prioridades da gestão. A discrepância de preços entre produtos de eficácia semelhante é intrigante e tema fértil para estudos futuros.

El objetivo fue efectuar un análisis del impacto presupuestario en la incorporación de una segunda línea terapéutica, con terapia antiangiogénica de aplicación intravítrea, para el tratamiento de edema macular diabético, en el ámbito del Sistema Único de Salud (SUS), en Minas Gerais, Brasil, discutiendo su viabilidad respecto al presupuesto del estado. Se realizó una análisis del impacto presupuestario con un método determinístico, según la directriz del Ministerio de Salud. Se incluyeron pacientes con probable fracaso al tratamiento de primera línea, en un horizonte temporal de 5 años para todas las tecnologías evaluadas. Se incluyeron en el análisis los medicamentos bevacizumab (uso off-label), ranibizumab y aflibercept. Las poblaciones se calcularon tanto por demanda evaluada, como por estimación epidemiológica. A modo de análisis de sensibilidad se planteó un escenario con una difusión de tecnología más lenta, un escenario con la entrada de bevacizumab y ranibizumab biosimilares en el mercado, y un escenario con la desconsideración de la inflación durante el período. El incremento del impacto presupuestario, de acuerdo con las estimativas de demanda evaluada y epidemiológica, respectivamente, fue BRL 69.493.906,95-BRL 473.226.278,78 en el caso del bevacizumab; BRL 349.319.965,60-BRL 2.378.732.103,09 en el de ranibizumab y BRL 543.867.485,47-BRL 3.703.524.490,16 en el aflibercept. El bevacizumab se mostró la alternativa financiera más viable en todos los escenarios de estimaciones y análisis de sensibilidad. Se estimó un incremento cercano al 3%, comparándolo con el presupuesto de 2016 (demanda evaluada). Se considera que la incorporación es viable dentro del SUS en Minas Gerais, pero sujeta a las prioridades de la gestión. La discrepancia de precios entre productos de eficacia semejante es intrigante y un tema fértil para estudios futuros.

Combination of Grid Laser Photocoagulation and a Single Intravitreal Ranibizumab as an Efficient and Cost-Effective Treatment Option for Macular Edema Secondary to Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion.

Our prospective comparative study of 60 patients aimed to compare the efficacy and feasibility of a single injection ranibizumab versus a single grid laser photocoagulation and versus a combined treatment in macular edema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion in Asian population. Patients were randomized 1:1:1 (n = 20/group) into grid laser (LAS), the ranibizumab (RAN), and the combination (COM) group. Outcomes were measured as best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT). There were significant differences in mean BCVA between the three groups at 1 week and 1 month (p < 0.05) and in mean CMT at 1 week and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months (p < 0.05). Overall, best results were observed in the combination group. However, the RAN and COM groups achieved very similar results. At 12 months, the CMT in all three groups was decreased compared with baseline (p < 0.05). Our results allow to conclude that the effect of early treatment with a single injection of intravitreal ranibizumab (cost reduction) and the stabilizing effect of grid laser photocoagulation is indeed an effective, feasible, and safe regiment for macular edema secondary to BRVO in Chinese patients, allowing to obviate the need for repeated intravitreal injections and thus reduce the adverse events, therapy duration, patients' malcompliance, and adverse events. A single ranibizumab therapy however is a comparable alternative.

Healthcare resource use and costs of diabetic macular oedema for patients with antivascular endothelial growth factor versus a dexamethasone intravitreal implant in Korea: a population-based study.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the costs and healthcare resources of patients with diabetic macular oedema (DME) who received intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents or a dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEX-implant) in Korea. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: The Korean National Health Insurance claim data from 1 January 2015 to 30 June 2017 were retrieved from the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients with DME who were diagnosed with diabetic retinopathy or DME and received ranibizumab, aflibercept or a DEX-implant in conjunction with intravitreal injection were included. Patients whose primary diagnoses were age-related macular degeneration or retinal vein occlusion were excluded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Healthcare resource utilisation and costs related to DME in the 12-month postindex period. RESULTS: During the study period, 182 patients and 414 patients were identified in the anti-VEGF and DEX-implant groups, respectively, and there was no significant difference in the demographic characteristics between the two groups. The outpatient eye care-related medical costs were US$3002.33 for the anti-VEGF group vs US$2250.35 for the DEX-implant group (p<0.0001). After adjusting the relevant covariates based on the generalised linear model, the estimated outpatient eye care-related medical costs were 33% higher in the anti-VEGF group than in the DEX-implant group (p<0.0001, 95% CI 22% to 45%). The utilisation pattern of the two groups showed no significant difference except for the number of intravitreal injections, which was higher in the anti-VEGF group (2.69±2.29) than in the DEX-implant group (2.09±1.37, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The average annual eye-related medical cost of the DEX-implant group was significantly lower than that of the anti-VEGF group during the study period, which was mainly due to decreased utilisation of eye care-related injections. Further long-term studies are needed.

Incremental cost-effectiveness of screening and laser treatment for diabetic retinopathy and macular edema in Malawi.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the economic impact of introducing targeted screening and laser photocoagulation treatment for sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy and macular edema in a setting with no previous screening or laser treatment for diabetic retinopathy in sub-Saharan Africa. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cohort Markov model was built to compare combined targeted screening and laser treatment for patients with sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy and macular edema against no intervention. Primary outcomes were incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained and per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted. Primary data were collected on 357 participants from the Malawi Diabetic Retinopathy Study, a prospective, observational cohort study. Multiple scenarios were explored and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed. RESULTS: In the base case (age: 50 years, service utilization rate: 80%), the cost of the intervention and the years of severe visual impairment averted per patient screened were $209 and 2.2 years respectively. Applying the World Health Organization threshold of cost-effectiveness for Malawi ($679), the base case was cost-effective when QALYs were used ($400 per QALY gained) but not when DALYs were used ($766 per DALY averted). The intervention was more cost-effective when it targeted younger patients (age: 30 years) and less cost-effective when the utilization rate was lowered to 50%. CONCLUSIONS: Annual photographic screening of diabetic patients attending medical diabetes clinics in Malawi, with the provision of laser treatment for those with sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy and macular edema, appears to be cost-effective in terms of QALYs gained, in our base case scenario. Cost-effectiveness improves if services are utilized more intensively and extended to younger patients.