Cost-effectiveness analysis of bevacizumab for cerebral radiation necrosis treatment based on real-world utility value in China.

BACKGROUND: Bevacizumab shows superior efficacy in cerebral radiation necrosis (CRN) therapy, but its economic burden remains heavy due to the high drug price. This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab for CRN treatment from the Chinese payers' perspective. METHODS: A decision tree model was developed to compare the costs and health outcomes of bevacizumab and corticosteroids for CRN therapy. Efficacy and safety data were derived from the NCT01621880 trial, which compared the effectiveness and safety of bevacizumab monotherapy with corticosteroids for CRN in nasopharyngeal cancer patients, and demonstrated that bevacizumab invoked a significantly higher response than corticosteroids (65.5% vs. 31.5%, P < 0.001) with no significant differences in adverse events between two groups. The utility value of the "non-recurrence" status was derived from real-world data. Costs and other utility values were collected from an authoritative Chinese network database and published literature. The primary outcomes were total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The uncertainty of the model was evaluated via one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Bevacizumab treatment added 0.12 (0.48 vs. 0.36) QALYs compared to corticosteroid therapy, along with incremental costs of $ 2010 ($ 4260 vs. $ 2160). The resultant ICER was $ 16,866/QALY, which was lower than the willingness-to-pay threshold of $ 38,223/QALY in China. The price of bevacizumab, body weight, and the utility value of recurrence status were the key influential parameters for ICER. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that the probability of bevacizumab being cost-effectiveness was 84.9%. CONCLUSION: Compared with corticosteroids, bevacizumab is an economical option for CRN treatment in China.

Real-world service costs for neovascular-AMD clinics in the United Kingdom: structured literature review and scenario analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Current cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) emphasize drug costs as the differentiator between NICE recommended anti-VEGF treatments but may neglect real-world non-drug costs of running nAMD services in the UK. To address this, this study identified real-world non-drug service cost items relevant to UK NHS nAMD clinics, including costs arising from operational strain (demand exceeding capacity). METHODS: Cost items were identified by a structured literature review of peer-reviewed and grey literature, and an expert panel of 10 UK-based ophthalmologists with relevance to real-world practice. These items underwent meta-synthesis and were then determined in a consensus exercise. RESULTS: Of 237 cost items identified, 217 (91.6%) met the consensus threshold of >0.51 and were included in the nAMD Service Non-Drug Cost Instrument (nAS). Sensitivity of cost items taken from UK Health Technology Assessment (HTA) using the nAS as the reference standard was low (HTAmin: 1.84%, 95% CI 0.50-4.65%; HTAmax: 70.51%, 95% CI 63.96-76.49%). False negative rates showed variable likelihood of misclassifying a service by cost burden depending on prevalence. Scenario analysis using cost magnitudes estimated annual per-patient clinic cost at £845 (within capacity) to £13,960 (under strain) compared to an HTAmin estimate of £210. Accounting for cost of strain under an assumed 50% increase in health resource utilization influenced cost-effectiveness in a hypothetical genericisation scenario. CONCLUSION: Findings suggested that HTA underestimates UK NHS nAMD clinic cost burden with cost of strain contributing substantial additional unmeasured expense with impact on CEA. Given potential undertreatment due to strain, durability is suggested as one of the relevant factors in CEA of nAMD anti-VEGF treatments due to robustness under limited capacity conditions affecting UK ophthalmology services.

When considering how well treatments work versus how much they cost, the focus is usually only on the price of the medicine itself. However, other real-world costs exist. In the UK, when treating certain eye problems such as neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD), there are additional expenses related to running clinics and managing treatments that often go unnoticed. To get a better understanding of these hidden costs, the study examined factors like clinic workload and the extra expenses that come with it. Ten eye doctors in the UK were consulted for their expert opinions and numerous research papers were reviewed to identify these additional costs. The study grouped different costs in a tool called the nAMD Service Non-Drug Cost Instrument (nAS). When the findings of the nAS tool were compared to the usual methods of calculating costs, it was found that the conventional approach overlooked many of the actual expenses. Busy clinics face unique challenges, such as higher operational costs associated with staffing for extended hours, emergency appointments, extended waiting times and the potential to miss optimal treatment windows. This can lead to disease progression and the onset of comorbidities, which require more complex and costly treatments. Recognizing these real costs is crucial when making decisions about treatments, especially when treatments require more frequent visits to eye clinics. This study emphasizes the importance of considering all expenses, not just the obvious ones like medication and doctor visits when determining the most effective way to manage eye conditions like nAMD in the UK.

Perspectives on the currently available pharmacotherapy for wet macular degeneration.

INTRODUCTION: Wet age-related macular degeneration (w-AMD) is a leading cause of visual impairment globally, with its prevalence expected to rise alongside increasing life expectancy. The current standard treatment involves frequent intravitreal injections of anti-VEGF agents, which although revolutionary, pose significant burdens on both patients and healthcare services. AREAS COVERED: This review explores current and emerging pharmaceutical treatments for w-AMD, focusing on their pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, efficacy, and safety. Promising developments include extending treatment intervals with newer anti-VEGF agents like brolucizumab and faricimab, biosimilars offering cost-effective options, and exploring innovative drug delivery methods such as subretinal gene therapy. Combination therapies, gene therapies, and novel agents like KSI-301 and OPT-302 show potential for improving treatment outcomes and reducing treatment burden. EXPERT OPINION: While current treatments for w-AMD have significantly advanced with the advent of anti-VEGF therapies, their limitations in terms of treatment burden and incomplete responses have spurred research into diverse alternative approaches. These innovative strategies offer hope for improving patient outcomes and reducing healthcare burdens, suggesting a promising future for w-AMD management.

One-year outcomes and safety assessment of faricimab in treatment-naïve patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration in Japan.

This multicentre retrospective study evaluated the 1-year outcomes and safety profile of faricimab in treatment-naïve patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). Fifty-five patients (57 eyes) underwent loading therapy comprising three monthly faricimab injections. If dryness was achieved by the third month, subsequent treat-and-extend (TAE) follow-up continued at a minimum 8-week interval thereafter. If wet macula persisted at the third month, a fourth dose was administered, followed by the TAE regimen. After 1 year, improvements in visual acuity (0.44 ± 0.46 [baseline] to 0.34 ± 0.48; p < 0.01) and central foveal thickness (326 ± 149 [baseline] to 195 ± 82 µm; p < 0.0001) were significant. Dry macula, characterised by the absence of intraretinal or subretinal fluid, was achieved in 65% of cases. Treatment intervals varied, ranging from 8 to 16 weeks, with 44% of eyes extending to a 16-week interval, followed by 33% at 8 weeks, 16% at 12 weeks, 5% at 14 weeks, and 2% at 10 weeks. Notably, 50% of the polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy patients exhibited complete regression of polypoidal lesions between 12 and 15 months. Faricimab treatment in nAMD patients induced significant improvements in central vision and retinal morphology. Two cases of retinal pigment epithelial tears and one case of iritis were reported as ocular complications.

Faricimab in Previously Treated Eyes With Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration: An Assessment of Durability and Treatment Outcomes.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the efficacy and durability of faricimab in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) who were previously treated with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective case series was conducted at a single tertiary center in the United States. It focused on nAMD patients who transitioned to faricimab after initial anti-VEGF therapy, with a follow-up period of at least 9 months. "Complete dryness" was defined as the absence of intra- and/or subretinal fluid on optical coherence tomography. Durability was gauged by the extension of treatment intervals relative to the injection frequency of the previous agent. RESULTS: Sixty-two eyes from 62 patients were included. Treatment interval ranged from 5 to 10 weeks; 10 (16%) patients were able to be extended by 2 or more weeks compared to their previous regimen. Median (interquartile range [IQR]) central field thickness was 310 µm (254, 376) on initiating faricimab and declined by the ninth month (P values at 3, 6, and 9 months were 0.01, 0.02, and 0.07, respectively). Median (IQR) visual acuity at initiation of faricimab was 0.4 (0.20, 0.50) and did not change by the ninth month. Complete anatomical dryness was present in 10 (16%) eyes before switching; 90% remained dry at 9 months. Of 52 (84%) incompletely dry eyes before switching, 15% achieved complete dryness by 9 months on faricimab. CONCLUSIONS: Faricimab modestly improved the treatment intervals for a small proportion of previously treated patients on anti-VEGF therapy. [Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina 2024;55:504-509.].

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.

Cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab therapy in the care of patients with hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia.

ABSTRACT: No US Food and Drug Administration- or European Medicines Agency-approved therapies exist for bleeding due to hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia (HHT), the second-most common inherited bleeding disorder worldwide. The current standard of care (SOC) includes iron and red cell supplementation, alongside the necessary hemostatic procedures, none of which target underlying disease pathogenesis. Recent evidence has demonstrated that bleeding pathophysiology is amenable to systemic antiangiogenic therapy with the anti-vascular endothelial growth factor bevacizumab. Despite its high cost, the addition of longitudinal bevacizumab to the current SOC may reduce overall health care resource use and improve patient quality of life. We conducted, to our knowledge, the first cost-effectiveness analysis of IV bevacizumab in patients with HHT with the moderate-to-severe phenotype, comparing bevacizumab added to SOC vs SOC alone. The primary outcome was the incremental net monetary benefit (iNMB) reported over a lifetime time horizon and across accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds, in US dollar per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Bevacizumab therapy accrued 9.3 QALYs while generating $428 000 in costs, compared with 8.3 QALYs and $699 000 in costs accrued in the SOC strategy. The iNMB of bevacizumab therapy vs the SOC was $433 000. No parameter variation and no scenario analysis, including choice of iron supplementation product, changed the outcome of bevacizumab being a cost-saving strategy. Bevacizumab therapy also saved patients an average of 133 hours spent receiving HHT-specific care per year of life. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, bevacizumab was favored in 100% of all 10 000 Monte Carlo iterations across base-case and all scenario analyses. Bevacizumab should be considered for more favorable formulary placement in the care of patients with moderate-to-severe HHT.

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.

Ranibizumab Biosimilars in Treating Retinal Disorders: A Cost-Effective Revolution?

Ranibizumab, is a humanized, monoclonal antibody fragment that binds and inactivates vascular endothelial growth factor-A (VEGF-A) and VEGF-B. One of the main indications for an intravitreal treatment with ranibizumab is age-related macular degeneration (AMD), which is a retinal disease with a high worldwide socioeconomic impact. Biosimilars constitute biological products that demonstrate similar pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic characteristics with a reference product, as well as comparable clinical efficacy, safety and immunogenicity. Since the approval of the first biosimilar Razumab, there has been a variety of new biosimilars available on the market. They offer the advantage of the same good clinical and safety results at a better price. All Ranibizumab biosimilars that have gained approval were tested in double masked Phase 3 clinical studies. The use of Ranibizumab biosimilars in neovascular AMD is well reported in the bibliography. Nevertheless, over the last few years, there is a tendency of using biosimilars in other retinal diseases like retinopathy of prematurity (ROP), diabetic macular edema (DME) or polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy (PCV). In conclusion, ranibizumab biosimilars offer a promising avenue for the management of retinal diseases, especially in countries with lower socioeconomic status, where there is lack of availability of innovator ranibizumab. However, further research is required to fully explore their efficacy, safety, and long-term outcomes in a plethora of retinal diseases.

Barriers to care in neovascular age-related macular degeneration: Current understanding, developments, and future directions.

Neovascular age-related macular degeneration is the advanced and irreversible stage of age-related macular degeneration, the leading cause of severe vision loss in older adults. While anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections have been shown to preserve or improve vision quality in eyes with neovascular age-related macular degeneration, the treatment regimen can be demanding of patients and caregivers, leading to lower rates of adherence. Therefore, it is crucial that disparities and obstacles in neovascular age-related macular degeneration care are identified to improve access to treatment. Review of the current literature revealed 7 major categories of barriers: travel burden, psychological barriers, financial burden and socioeconomic status, treatment regimen, other comorbidities, provider-level barriers, and system-level barriers. We provide an overview of the major barriers to neovascular age-related macular degeneration care that have been reported, as well as gaps in research that need to be investigated further.

Cost-effectiveness of the anti-vascular endothelial growth factor intravitreal injection and panretinal photocoagulation for patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy in South Korea.

BACKGROUND: We determined the cost-effectiveness of the anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) intravitreal injection versus panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) for patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) in South Korea. METHODS: We simulated four treatment strategies using PRP and the anti-VEGF injection by constructing a Markov model for a hypothetical cohort of 50-year-old PDR patients: (1) PRP only; (2) anti-VEGF injection only; (3) PRP first; and (4) anti-VEGF injection first. RESULTS: In this cost-effectiveness analysis, compared with only-PRP, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $95,456 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for PRP first, $34,375 per QALY for anti-VEGF injection first, and $33,405 per QALY for anti-VEGF injection only from a healthcare perspective. From the societal and payer perspective, strategy (2) was more cost-saving and effective than (1). In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, only-PRP was cost-effective up to the willingness-to-pay (WTP) of about $42,000, while anti-VEGF injection only was cost-effective from a healthcare perspective. From the societal and payer perspectives, regardless of the value of WTP, anti-VEGF injection only was the most cost-effective strategy. CONCLUSION: In our study, the anti-VEGF injection for PDR was cost-effective from the payer and societal perspectives.

[Relationship between treatment and cost with visual acuity improvement in age-related macular degeneration]. / Relación del tratamiento y coste con la ganancia de agudeza visual en la degeneración macular asociada a la edad

BACKGROUND: We examined the relationship between visual acuity changes (VA) and the cost of care and treatment with anti-vascular endothelial growth factors (antiVEGF) in patients diagnosed with age-related exudative macular degeneration (exudative AMD). METHODS: Observational, longitudinal, retrospective study of patients ≥50 years of age diagnosed with exudative AMD, with a log-MAR VA between 0.6 and 0.06. and 0.06. Follow-up and treatment were done in our tertiary hospital between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2018. RESULTS: The study included 778 patients; 62.2% female and mean age 79.83±7.94 years; 957 eyes had exudative AMD. Mean of final VA (0.65±0.45) increasing 3.2% compared to initial values. Ranibizumab was administered to 60.3% of the eyes, aflibercept to 10.2% and ranibizumab + aflibercept (mixed group) to 29.5%. Significant increase in VA was seen in the group with the mixed treatment, with no inter-group differences. Although follow-up/treatment was longer for the mixed group, they received fewer anti-VEGF injections and optical coherence tomography (OCT). The total expenditure per year and treated eye was € 1,972.7±824.5; costs were higher for visit, OCT, and treatment in the aflibercept group, and lower for fluorescein angiography, antiVEGF treatment, and total costs in the mixed group. Decimal VA gain had a cost of € 872±1,077.7 with no significant inter-group differences. CONCLUSIONS: AntiVEGF treatments (ranibizumab, aflibercept, or both) maintained VA in patients with exudative AMD. Overall, care and treatment costs were lower in the group that received both drugs.

Association of Health Insurance Status With Severity and Treatment Among Infants With Retinopathy of Prematurity.

This study describes retinopathy of prematurity treatment practices using Medicaid and commercial claims databases. Infants with Medicaid tend to be sicker overall and have higher rates of retinopathy of prematurity requiring treatment than those with commercial insurance. Among patients who required treatment, those with Medicaid were more likely to receive anti-vascular endothelial growth factor than laser treatment. [J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 2023;60(6):e75-e78.].

Cost-Utility Comparison of Bevacizumab and Aflibercept in the Treatment of Central or Hemiretinal Vein Occlusion in the SCORE2 Trial.

Importance: Retinal vein occlusion is the second most common retinal vascular disease. Bevacizumab was demonstrated in the Study of Comparative Treatments for Retinal Vein Occlusion 2 (SCORE2) to be noninferior to aflibercept with respect to visual acuity in study participants with macular edema due to central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) or hemiretinal vein occlusion (HRVO) following 6 months of therapy. In this study, the cost-utility of bevacizumab vs aflibercept for treatment of CRVO is evaluated. Objective: To investigate the relative cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab vs aflibercept for treatment of macular edema associated with CRVO or HRVO. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation study used a microsimulation cohort of patients with clinical and demographic characteristics similar to those of SCORE2 participants and a Markov process. Parameters were estimated and validated using a split-sample approach of the SCORE2 population. The simulated cohort included 5000 patients who were evaluated 100 times, each with a different set of characteristics randomly selected based on the SCORE2 trial. SCORE2 data were collected from September 2014 October 2019, and data were analyzed from October 2019 to July 2021. Interventions: Bevacizumab (followed by aflibercept among patients with a protocol-defined poor or marginal response to bevacizumab at month 6) vs aflibercept (followed by a dexamethasone implant among patients with a protocol-defined poor or marginal response to aflibercept at month 6). Main Outcomes and Measures: Incremental cost-utility ratio. Results: The simulation demonstrated that patients treated with aflibercept will have an expected cost $18 127 greater than those treated with bevacizumab in the year following initiation. When coupled with the lack of clinical superiority over bevacizumab (ie, patients treated with bevacizumab had a gain over aflibercept in visual acuity letter score of 4 in the treated eye and 2 in the fellow eye), these results demonstrate that first-line treatment with bevacizumab dominated aflibercept in the simulated cohort of SCORE2 participants. At current price levels, aflibercept would be considered the preferred cost-effective option only if treatment restored the patient to nearly perfect health. Conclusions and Relevance: While there will be some patients with CRVO-associated or HRVO-associated macular edema who will benefit from first-line treatment with aflibercept rather than bevacizumab, given the minimal differences in visual acuity outcomes and large cost differences for bevacizumab vs aflibercept, first-line treatment with bevacizumab is cost-effective for this condition.

The Biosimilar Paradox: How Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Biosimilars Could Increase Patient and Overall Health Care Costs.

PURPOSE: Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) medications for intraocular use are a major and increasing cost, and biosimilars may be a means of reducing the high cost of many biologic medications. However, a bevacizumab biosimilar, which is currently pending Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval (bevacizumab-vikg), paradoxically may increase the cost burden of intravitreal anti-VEGF agents, because off-label repackaged drugs may no longer be allowed per the Drug Quality and Security Act (DQSA). We aimed to investigate the potential impact of biosimilars on costs in the United States. DESIGN: Cost analysis of anti-VEGF medications. PARTICIPANTS: Medicare data from October 2022 and previously published market share data from 2019. METHODS: Average sales prices (ASPs) of ranibizumab, aflibercept, and bevacizumab were calculated from Medicare allowable payments. The ASPs of biosimilars were calculated from wholesale acquisition costs from a representative distributor. The cost of an intraocular bevacizumab formulation is modeled at $500/1.25-mg dose and $900/1.25-mg dose. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Costs of anti-VEGF drugs to Medicare Part B and patients. RESULTS: If an intraocular bevacizumab biosimilar were to be priced at $500, costs to Medicare would increase by $457 million from $3.01 billion to $3.47 billion (15.2% increase). Patient responsibility would increase by $117 million from $768 million to $884 million. Similarly, if intraocular bevacizumab were priced at $900, Medicare costs would increase by $897 million to $3.91 billion (29.8% increase), and patient responsibility would increase by $229 million to $997 million. If bevacizumab were $500/dose, switching all patients currently receiving ranibizumab or aflibercept to respective biosimilars would compensate for only 28.8% of the increased cost. Current prices of ranibizumab and aflibercept biosimilars would have to decrease by an aggregate of 15.7% to $616.80/injection, $1027.97/injection, and $1436.88/injection for ranibizumab 0.3 mg, ranibizumab 0.5 mg, and aflibercept, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: An FDA-approved bevacizumab biosimilar for ophthalmic use could increase costs to the health care system and patients, raising concerns for access. This increase would not be offset by ranibizumab and aflibercept biosimilar use at current prices. These data support the need for an exemption of section 503B of the DQSA and continued use of repackaged off-label bevacizumab. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Loss to Follow-up in Patients with Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration Treated with Anti-VEGF Therapy in the United States in the IRIS® Registry.

PURPOSE: To determine the incidence of being lost to follow-up (LTFU) and nonpersistence in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD) treated with anti-VEGF injections in the United States. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using the IRIS® (Intelligent Research in Sight) Registry data. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred fifty-six thousand three hundred twenty-seven treatment-naive patients with neovascular AMD who subsequently were treated with anti-VEGF therapy from 2013 through 2015 and followed up through 2019. METHODS: Multivariable logistic regression models were used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Being LTFU was defined as no follow-up within 12 months from last intravitreal injection. Nonpersistence was defined as no follow-up within 6 months from last intravitreal injection. RESULTS: For neovascular AMD, 11.6% of patients (95% CI, 11.4%-11.7%) were LTFU, and 88.4% of patients were followed up within 12 months. The rate of being LTFU generally was higher with increasing age, with odds of being LTFU greatest for patients between 81 and 84 years of age (OR, 2.51; 95% CI, 2.31-2.74; P < 0.001) compared with patients 70 years of age and younger. Odds of being LTFU for Black or African American patients (OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.08-1.61; P = 0.007) were greater than for White patients. Odds of being LTFU were higher for patients with Medicaid insurance (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.01-1.60; P = 0.04) and lower for patients with Medicare Fee-For-Service insurance (OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.64-0.74; P < 0.001) than for patients with private insurance. Furthermore, 14.3% (95% CI, 14.1-14.4) of patients were nonpersistent, and 85.7% of patients underwent follow-up within 6 months. Odds of nonpersistence also were greatest among patients between 81 and 84 years of age (OR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.98-2.29; P < 0.001) compared with patients 70 years of age or younger. Odds of nonpersistence for Black or African-American patients (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.15-1.65; P < 0.001) and Hispanic patients (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.03-1.24; P = 0.009) were greater than odds for White patients. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly 1 of 9 patients with neovascular AMD treated with anti-VEGF injections became LTFU, whereas 1 of 7 patients were nonpersistent. Risk factors identified included increasing age, male sex, unilateral involvement, diabetes, Medicaid insurance, and race or ethnicity. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.

INTRAVITREAL ANTI-VASCULAR ENDOTHELIAL GROWTH FACTOR PHARMACEUTICAL UTILIZATION AND FINANCIAL IMPACT IN A VALUE-BASED CARE PROGRAM.

PURPOSE: To investigate trends and the potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the utilization of intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) pharmaceuticals in an accountable care organization (ACO). METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services beneficiary claims for all patients in the Houston Methodist Coordinated Care ACO registry during the years 2018, 2019, and 2020. RESULTS: Across the 3 years studied, a mean of 708 patients received anti-VEGF injections per year. The percentage of patients who received anti-VEGF injections decreased in each sequential year, with a steeper decline during the COVID-19 pandemic in the year 2020 (decrease by 0.4% from 2019 to 2020, P < 0.001; decrease by 0.2% from 2018 to 2019, P = 0.1453). The percentage of patients receiving bevacizumab of the total number of patients receiving any anti-VEGF treatment decreased (bevacizumab decreased by 6% from 2019 to 2020, P = 0.0174; decreased by 7% from 2018 to 2019, P = 0.0074). The COVID-19 pandemic did not seem to correlate with a change in the distribution of the specific anti-VEGF injection used. CONCLUSION: Despite the lower price which may correlate with value-based care, bevacizumab was the least used anti-VEGF treatment. COVID-19 correlated with a larger decrease in the utilization of all three anti-VEGF drugs.

Comparison of Snellen Visual Acuity Measurements in Retinal Clinical Practice to Electronic ETDRS Protocol Visual Acuity Assessment.

PURPOSE: Evaluate the differences between clinical visual acuity (VA) as recorded in medical records and electronic Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (eETDRS) protocol VA measurements and factors affecting the size of the differences. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. PARTICIPANTS: Study and fellow eyes of participants enrolled in DRCR Retina Network Protocols AC and AE (diabetic macular edema), and W (nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy) with clinical VA recorded within 3 months before the protocol visit. METHODS: Differences and their association with patient and ocular factors were evaluated using linear mixed models with random effects for correlations within sites and participants. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Difference between VA letter scores measured by eETDRS during a study visit versus measured by Snellen during a regular clinical visit (Snellen fraction converted to eETDRS). RESULTS: Data from 1016 eyes (511 participants) across 74 sites were analyzed. The mean VA measurements were 68.6 letters (Snellen equivalent 20/50) at the clinical visit and 76.3 letters (Snellen equivalent 20/32) at the protocol visit, with a mean (standard deviation [SD]) of 26 (21) days between visits. Mean (SD) protocol VA was better than clinical VA by 7.6 (9.6) letters overall, 10.7 (12.6) letters in eyes with clinical VA ≤ 20/50 (n = 376), and 5.8 (6.6) letters in eyes with clinical VA ≥ 20/40 (n = 640). On average, the difference between clinical and protocol VA was 1.3 letters smaller for every 1-line (5 letters) increase in clinical VA (P < 0.001). Mean (SD) differences by clinical correction of refractive error were 3.9 (9.0) letters with refraction, 6.9 (9.2) letters with glasses/contact lenses, 7.9 (11.5) letters with pinhole, and 9.8 (9.3) letters without correction (P = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: On average, clinical Snellen VA is 1 to 2 lines worse than eETDRS protocol refraction and VA testing, which may partly explain why clinical practice does not always replicate clinical trial results. Eyes with lower clinical measurements and eyes tested without clinical refraction tended to have larger differences. Considering the potential discrepancies between clinical and protocol VA measurements, refracting eyes in the clinic may benefit patients when determining treatment plans and study referrals based on vision. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.

Cost minimization analysis of brolucizumab in the treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration.

INTRODUCTION: Brolucizumab is a novel anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) drug administered in a fixed regimen of 8 or 12 weeks which, in the HAWK and HARRIER studies, was shown not to be inferior to aflibercept with respect to the best corrected visual acuity, with a less burdensome treatment regimen. The aim of the analysis was to compare the direct healthcare costs of both anti-VEGF as a treatment in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A cost minimization analysis was performed under a 25-year time horizon and considering the drug costs, administration, follow-up tests, and management of adverse events. Resource use was obtained from the related literature and validated by clinical experts. Various scenario analysis were carried out to check the robustness of the results. RESULTS: Brolucizumab resulted in a lower cost per patient compared with aflibercept, considering the number of injections derived from the HAWK and HARRIER studies. This result was maintained in the different scenarios analysed, except for the number of injections of the flexible aflibercept regimen of the ARIES study, since the lower discontinuation of treatment with brolucizumab implies maintaining the treatment of more patients. Considering the same discontinuation, brolucizumab maintained the results observed in the base case of the analysis. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows how the fixed administration regimen of brolucizumab can help reduce both healthcare and patients' burden.

Assessment of mouse VEGF neutralization by ranibizumab and aflibercept.

PURPOSE: To assess the interaction between ranibizumab, aflibercept, and mouse vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), both in vivo and in vitro. METHODS: In vivo, the effect of intravitreal injection of ranibizumab and aflibercept on oxygen induced retinopathy (OIR) and the effect of multiple intraperitoneal injections of ranibizumab and aflibercept on neonatal mice were assessed. In vitro, the interaction of mouse VEGF-A with aflibercept or ranibizumab as the primary antibody was analyzed by Western blot. RESULTS: In both experiments using intravitreal injections in OIR mice and multiple intraperitoneal injections in neonatal mice, anti-VEGF effects were observed with aflibercept, but not with ranibizumab. Western blot analysis showed immunoreactive bands for mouse VEGF-A in the aflibercept-probed blot, but not in the ranibizumab-probed blot. CONCLUSIONS: Aflibercept but not ranibizumab interacts with mouse VEGF, both in vivo and in vitro. When conducting experiments using anti-VEGF drugs in mice, aflibercept is suitable, but ranibizumab is not.