[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.

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.

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.

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.

[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.

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.

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.

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 / 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 presupuestario de la incorporación de medicamentos para un tratamiento de segunda línea del edema macular diabético en el Sistema Único de Salud, desde la perspectiva de la Secretaría Estatal de Salud de Minas Gerais, Brasil

Resumo: 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.

Abstract: 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.

Resumen: 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.

Budget impact analysis of dexamethasone intravitreal implant for the treatment of diabetic macular oedema.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the economic impact following the inclusion of an intravitreal implant of dexamethasone for the treatment of diabetic macular oedema in a healthcare area in Spain. METHOD: A 3-year budget impact model was designed to estimate healthcare  direct costs for adult patients with diabetic macular oedema from the National  Health System perspective. The approved therapies in use  (aflibercept/ranibizumab/dexamethasone) were considered. The target  population was estimated from published diabetic macular oedema prevalence  (6.41%) and incidence (0.82%) for a population of 25,000 adults.  Dexamethasone was assumed to be used annually in 20%, 30% and 40% of  patients, respectively. Annual total costs included: drug acquisition (based on  frequency of injections per every year, considering exfactory prices with  mandatory deduction and split of vials), intravitreal administration, patient  monitoring, management of cardiovascular and ocular adverse events  (cataracts, increased intraocular pressure, endophthalmitis, vitreous  haemorrhage and retinal detachment). Detailed resource consumption reflecting  clinical practice was provided from local experts in retina and vitreous. Unitary  costs (€, 2016) were obtained from national databases and literature. Sensitivity  analyses were performed to assess model robustness. RESULTS: The inclusion of intravitreal dexamethasone implant would lead to  annual cost savings of €35,030 (-4.2%), €10,743 (-1.8%) and €5,051 (-0.9%), years 1-3 respectively. Total costs were reduced mainly by the fewer annual  injections required by dexamethasone. The average annual incremental costs  were -€350, -€96 and -€41 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: The inclusion of an intravitreal dexamethasone implant for the  treatment of diabetic macular oedema would lead to cost-savings for the  considered health area, mainly by reducing the administration costs.

Objetivo: Determinar el impacto económico tras la inclusión del implante intravítreo de dexametasona para el tratamiento del edema macular diabético en un área sanitaria en España.Método: Se diseñó un modelo de impacto presupuestario a tres años para  estimar los costes directos en pacientes adultos con edema macular diabético,  desde la perspectiva del Sistema Nacional de Salud, considerando terapias  intravítreas actualmente utilizadas (aflibercept/ranibizumab/dexametasona). La  población diana se obtuvo a partir de la prevalencia (6,41%) e incidencia  (0,82%) del edema macular diabético publicadas para una población de 25.000  pacientes adultos. Se asumió un 20%, 30% y 40% anual de pacientes tratados  con dexametasona, respectivamente. El coste total incluyó: coste farmacológico  (precio de venta del laboratorio con deducción obligatoria y fraccionamiento de  viales, según frecuencia de inyecciones necesarias cada año de tratamiento),  administración intravítrea, seguimiento de pacientes y manejo de eventos  oculares (cataratas, hipertensión ocular, endoftalmitis, hemorragia intravítrea y  desprendimiento de retina) y cardiovasculares. El consumo de recursos según la  práctica habitual fue estimado por expertos en retina y vítreo. Los costes  unitarios (€, 2016) se obtuvieron de la literatura y de bases de datos nacionales.  Los análisis de sensibilidad evaluaron la robustez del modelo. Resultados: La inclusión del implante intravítreo de dexametasona supondría reducciones de 35.030 € (­4,2%), 10.743 € (­1,8%) y 5.051 € (­ 0,9%) cada año, respectivamente, disminuyendo principalmente por el menor  número anual de inyecciones requeridas con dexametasona. La reducción anual  promedio supondría 350 €, 96 € y 41 € por paciente.Conclusiones: La inclusión del implante intravítreo de dexametasona para el  tratamiento del edema macular diabético supone ahorros para el área sanitaria  considerada, fundamentalmente por la reducción de costes de administración.

ILUVIEN® technology in the treatment of center-involving diabetic macular edema: a review of the literature.

Diabetic macular edema (DME) is one of the major causes of blindness, caused primarily by hyperglycemia and results from multiple pathological processes mostly secondary to increased levels of VEGF and other inflammatory cytokines. DME management includes control of systemic risk factors together with laser photocoagulation, frequent intraocular injections of anti-VEGF agents and steroids implants. Recent adoption of novel alternative drug delivery options has led to the development of sustained release ocular implants with longer duration of action with less injection frequency. This article will review the pharmacology and clinical data in terms of efficacy, safety and benefits of the sustained release steroid implants in treatment of DME with special emphasis on the fluocinolone acetonide ILUVIEN® implant.

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.

Diabetic macular edema, innovative technologies and economic impact: New opportunities for the Lombardy Region healthcare system?

PURPOSE: Diabetic macular edema (DME) is a leading cause of vision loss and blindness. The aim of this study was to evaluate the economic benefits of introducing additional alternative technologies (Dexamethasone intravitreal implant - DEX - and Aflibercept injections), compared with the historical scenario of Ranibizumab intravitreal injections. METHODS: A 3-year budget impact model was developed, taking into consideration the perspective of the Lombardy Region Healthcare Service (LRHS). Total administration costs (real-life data retrieved from clinical practice at three Departments of Ophthalmology) as well as costs related to the management of potential adverse events (information collected from the literature) were analysed. RESULTS: Over a 36-month horizon, the results showed that a higher consumption of DEX could lead to significant economic savings for the Regional Healthcare Service, ranging from a minimum of -4.35% (if DEX were used only in the second-line of treatment) to a maximum of -12.97% (if DEX were used in both the first-line and second-line), including the potential impact of adverse events. Therapy costs with Aflibercept and Ranibizumab were similar. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that concentrating all eligible patients within the Ranibizumab regimen is unlikely to represent a cost-effective strategy. Indeed, significant economic advantages would be achieved by introducing the other licensed alternatives, Dexamethasone implant and Aflibercept, thus optimising DME Italian healthcare expenditure. The results demonstrate DEX as an advantageous technological alternative for the target population affected by DME, both as a first- and second-line treatment option, reducing the economic burden of the pathology for the Regional/National Health Service.

Health-economic evaluation of fluocinolone acetonide 190 µg implant in people with diabetic macular edema.

OBJECTIVES: To assess healthcare resource use and costs of treating people with clinically significant diabetic macular edema (DME) with fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) 190 µg intravitreal implant in routine clinical practice. METHODS: The retrospective Iluvien Clinical Evidence (ICE-UK) study collected data on people prescribed the FAc implant in any one of 13 ophthalmology centers between April 1, 2013 and April 15, 2015. Data were collected for 12 months before and after implantation. Standard UK costs were attributed to healthcare resource use. RESULTS: In total, 208 people contributing 233 FAc-treated eyes were selected. Mean age was 68.1 years and 62% were male. The mean (standard deviation, SD) number of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) injections per FAc treated eye in the 12 months prior to implant was 2.8 (2.5), decreasing to 0.6 (1.4) for the same period after implant (p < .001). The corresponding figures for other steroid injections (dexamethasone and triamcinolone) were 0.14 (0.4) before and 0.08 (0.4) after implant (p = .016). There was no statistically significant difference in the number of laser therapies required in the 12 months before and after FAc implant (mean = 0.12 vs 0.11, respectively; p = .626). Overall, mean (SD) healthcare costs were £2,691 (£1,850) before and £1,239 (£1,203) after FAc implant (p < .001). The unit drug and administration cost per FAc implant was £5,680. CONCLUSIONS: Excluding the cost of the FAc implant, healthcare costs were significantly reduced in the 12 months post-implant. FAc implant has a duration of 3 years. This needs to be considered when interpreting the cost associated with the FAc implant.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab in the treatment of visual impairment due to diabetic macular edema.

Objective Ranibizumab, an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor designed for ocular use, has been deemed cost-effective in multiple indications by several Health Technology Assessment bodies. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab monotherapy or combination therapy (ranibizumab plus laser photocoagulation) compared with laser monotherapy for the treatment of visual impairment due to diabetic macular edema (DME). Methods A Markov model was developed in which patients moved between health states defined by best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) intervals and an absorbing 'death' state. The population of interest was patients with DME due to type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus. Baseline characteristics were based on those of participants in the RESTORE study. Main outputs were costs (in 2013 CA$) and health outcomes (in quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated. This cost-utility analysis was conducted from healthcare system and societal perspectives in Quebec. Results From a healthcare system perspective, the ICERs for ranibizumab monotherapy and combination therapy vs laser monotherapy were CA$24 494 and CA$36 414 per QALY gained, respectively. The incremental costs per year without legal blindness for ranibizumab monotherapy and combination therapy vs laser monotherapy were CA$15 822 and CA$20 616, respectively. Based on the generally accepted Canadian ICER threshold of CA$50 000 per QALY gained, ranibizumab monotherapy and combination therapy were found to be cost-effective compared with laser monotherapy. From a societal perspective, ranibizumab monotherapy and combination therapy provided greater benefits at lower costs than laser monotherapy (ranibizumab therapy dominated laser therapy). Conclusions Ranibizumab monotherapy and combination therapy resulted in increased quality-adjusted survival and time without legal blindness and lower costs from a societal perspective compared with laser monotherapy.

Analysis of costs associated with the management and morbidity of diabetic macular oedema and macular oedema secondary to retinal vein occlusion. / Análisis de los costes asociados al manejo y morbilidad del edema macular diabético y el edema macular secundario a oclusión venosa de la retina.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse the disease burden in patients with diabetic macular oedema (DMO) or with retinal vein occlusion macular oedema (RVOMO) from a societal perspective. METHODS: Observational, cross-sectional, multicentre study conducted on patients >18 years old diagnosed with uni- or bilateral DMO or unilateral RVOMO. Data on the use of health resources from diagnosis was collected, and the impact of disease on work life was assessed. Costs were annualised (euros, January 2014). Differences were contrasted using Chi-squared test (or Fisher Exact test), Mann Whitney-U test or Kruskal-Wallis test (Dunn contrast). RESULTS: A total of 448 patients were included (DMO 255; RVOMO 193). There were significant differences in costs of diagnosis: RVOMO €1856, bilateral DMO €1661, and unilateral DMO €1401 (P<.001) and the aggregate medical costs: RVOMO €4639, bilateral DMO 6275€ and unilateral DMO 6269€ (P<.001). Cost by permanent time off work was higher in bilateral DMO €11712, than in unilateral DMO €4284€, and than in RVOMO €1052 (P<.05). Linear regression analysis showed that variables associated with direct health costs were: Diagnosis (bilateral DMO was associated with higher cost), as well as number of days in hospital, number of visits, time of observation, and number of days of time off work. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with bilateral DMO are associated with a higher direct health cost, as well as a higher indirect cost by impact of the disease on work life.