[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.

Diabetic macular edema and proliferative diabetic retinopathy treated with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor under the reimbursement policy in Taiwan.

The purpose of this retrospective interventional case series is to compare the functional and anatomical outcomes in eyes with diabetic macular edema (DME) and proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) treated intravitreally with aflibercept or ranibizumab under the Taiwan National Insurance Bureau reimbursement policy. 84 eyes were collected and all eyes were imaged with spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT), color fundus photographs (CFPs), and fluorescein angiography (FA). At 24 months after therapy initiation, the logMAR BCVA improved from 0.58 ± 0.33 to 0.47 ± 0.38 (p < 0.01), the CRT decreased from 423.92 ± 135.84 to 316.36 ± 90.02 (p < 0.01), and the number of microaneurysms decreased from 142.14 ± 57.23 to 75.32 ± 43.86 (p < 0.01). The mean injection count was 11.74 ± 5.44. There was no intergroup difference in logMAR BCVA (p = 0.96), CRT (p = 0.69), or injection count (p = 0.81). However, the mean number of microaneurysms was marginally reduced (p = 0.06) in eyes treated with aflibercept at the end of the follow-up, and the incidence rates of supplementary panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) (p = 0.04) and subthreshold micropulse laser (SMPL) therapy sessions (p = 0.01) were also reduced. Multivariate analysis revealed that only initial logMAR BCVA influenced the final VA improvements (odds ratio (OR) 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.21 ~ 0.93, p < 0.01); in contrast, age (OR - 0.38, 95% CI - 6.97 ~ - 1.85, p < 0.01) and initial CRT (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.34 ~ 0.84, p < 0.01) both influenced the final CRT reduction at 24 months. To sum up, both aflibercept and ranibizumab are effective in managing DME with PDR in terms of VA, CRT and MA count. Eyes receiving aflibercept required less supplementary PRP and SMPL treatment than those receiving ranibizumab. The initial VA influenced the final VA improvements at 24 months, while age and initial CRT were prognostic predictors of 24-month CRT reduction.

Racial, Ethnic, and Insurance-Based Disparities Upon Initiation of Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Therapy for Diabetic Macular Edema in the US.

PURPOSE: This study characterizes the association of risk factors including race, ethnicity, and insurance status with presenting visual acuity (VA) and diabetic retinopathy (DR) severity in patients initiating treatment with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy for diabetic macular edema (DME). DESIGN: Retrospective, cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS: The Academy Intelligent Research in Sight (IRIS) Registry database was queried for patients who initiated anti-VEGF injection treatment for DME between 2012 and 2020 (n = 203 707). METHODS: Multivariate regression analyses were conducted to understand how race, ethnicity, insurance status, and geographic location were associated with baseline features. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Visual acuity and DR severity. RESULTS: Patients on Medicare and private insurance presented with higher baseline VA compared with patients on Medicaid (median of 2.31 and 4.17 greater Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Scale [ETDRS] letters, respectively P < 0.01). White and non-Hispanic patients presented with better VA compared with their counterparts (median of 0.68 and 2.53 greater ETDRS letters, respectively; P < 0.01). Black and Hispanic patients presented with a worse baseline DR severity compared with White and non-Hispanic patients (odds ratio, 1.23 and 1.71, respectively; P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: There are ethnic and insurance-based disparities in VA and disease severity upon initiation of anti-VEGF therapy for DME treatment. Public health initiatives could improve timely initiation of treatment.

BRAIN HEALTH ASSESSMENT IN MACULAR DEGENERATION PATIENTS UNDERGOING INTRAVITREAL ANTI-VASCULAR ENDOTHELIAL GROWTH FACTOR INJECTIONS (THE BHAM STUDY): An Interim Analysis.

PURPOSE: After intravitreal injection, anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents are found in the systemic circulation and can suppress systemic VEGF levels. Neuronal health and cognitive function in the central nervous system have been associated with normal physiological levels of VEGF expression. We wished to determine whether there was an association between cumulative anti-VEGF exposure and cognitive function. METHODS: One hundred and seventy-five patients aged 65 to 85 with vision of at least 20/50 or better in one eye and a diagnosis of age-related macular degeneration took an iPad-based brain health assessment to determine their risk of mild cognitive impairment. The result for each patient was compared with the total number of anti-VEGF injections per individual patient. Patients were then stratified into groups with 0 injections (control), 1 to 9 injections, 10 to 20 injections, or greater than 20 injections. RESULTS: The group of patients with more than 20 injections had a higher likelihood of mild cognitive impairment compared with the control group, with statistically significant worse mean Z-scores (P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Our study is the first to associate worsening cognitive health with higher cumulative anti-VEGF injections. This study was not designed to show a causal link, but does suggest that additional investigation is warranted.

Value of Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Gene Therapy for Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration.

PURPOSE: To use discounted cash flow (DCF) analysis to estimate the value creation associated with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) genetic therapy for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). DESIGN: Economic analysis. PARTICIPANTS: Adults undergoing serial intravitreal anti-VEGF injections in 1 eye for nAMD. METHODS: Discounted cash flow modeling with scenario analysis was used to derive a present value for a 1-time alternative treatment to lifelong anti-VEGF treatment for nAMD. Multiple sensitivity analyses were performed on the basis of patient age at time of first injection and frequency interval of intravitreal injection. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Present values of DCF and scenario analyses. RESULTS: Discounted cash flow analysis of intravitreal anti-VEGF treatment for nAMD resulted in a base-case valuation of $208 420.61, $219 093.31, and $17 379.41 for a 1-time alternative treatment to aflibercept, ranibizumab, and bevacizumab, respectively. This figure covaried significantly with anti-VEGF agent according to the patient age at first injection ($78 323.19-$292 449.87) and frequency of injections ($148 422.91-$388 096.81). In addition, for bevacizumab, variability was driven by the hypothetical degree of clinical superiority of 1-time therapy to repeated intravitreal injections due to reduction in adverse events ($17 379.41-$18 250.79) or reduction in direct or indirect costs associated with age-related macular degeneration ($17 379.41-$657 406.55). CONCLUSIONS: Anti-VEGF gene therapy approaches can create significantly different value propositions based on the agent modeled, patient age at first injection, frequency of injections, and clinical profile of the medication. Although the use of aflibercept or ranibizumab as a comparative cost metric is logical from a bioequivalence perspective, the disparity in medication costs should not be the primary value driver in applied models. Instead, bevacizumab should be the base case ($17 379.41), with additional value driven from an improvement in quality of life through clinical superiority. A reduction in direct and indirect costs can be used to approximate the value from maintained visual acuity, which is elaborated in the DCF analysis approach described in this article. This model can serve as a basis for assessing the price ceiling of myriad gene therapy approaches. Given the high present values for these therapeutics, innovative costing and reimbursement mechanisms should be further explored, with contingencies for sustained efficacy.

Treatment regimens for administration of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents for neovascular age-related macular degeneration.

BACKGROUND: Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is one of the leading causes of permanent blindness worldwide. The current mainstay of treatment for neovascular AMD (nAMD) is intravitreal injection of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents: aflibercept, ranibizumab, and off-label bevacizumab. Injections can be given monthly, every two or three months ('extended-fixed'), or as needed (pro re nata (PRN)). A variant of PRN is 'treat-and-extend' whereby injections are resumed if recurrence is detected and then delivered with increasing intervals. Currently, injection frequency varies among practitioners, which underscores the need to characterize an optimized approach to nAMD management. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effects of monthly versus non-monthly intravitreous injection of an anti-VEGF agent in people with newly diagnosed nAMD. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and three trials registers from 2004 to October 2019; checked references; handsearched conference abstracts; and contacted pharmaceutical companies to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared different treatment regimens for anti-VEGF agents in people with newly diagnosed nAMD. We considered standard doses only (ranibizumab 0.5 mg, bevacizumab 1.25 mg, aflibercept 2.0 mg, or a combination of these). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods for trial selection, data extraction, and analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 RCTs. The total number of participants was 7732, ranging from 37 to 2457 in each trial. The trials were conducted worldwide. Of these, six trials exclusively took place in the US, and three included centers from more than one country. Eight trials were at high risk of bias for at least one domain and all trials had at least one domain at unclear risk of bias. Seven trials (3525 participants) compared a PRN regimen with a monthly injection regimen, of which five trials delivered four to eight injections using standard PRN and three delivered nine or 10 injections using a treat-and-extend regimen in the first year. The overall mean change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at one year was +8.8 letters in the monthly injection group. Compared to the monthly injection, there was moderate-certainty evidence that the mean difference (MD) in BCVA change at one year for the standard PRN subgroup was -1.7 letters (95% confidence interval (CI) -2.8 to -0.6; 4 trials, 2299 participants), favoring monthly injections. There was low-certainty evidence of a similar BCVA change with the treat-and-extend subgroup (0.5 letters, 95% CI -3.1 to 4.2; 3 trials, 1226 participants). Compared to monthly injection, there was low-certainty evidence that fewer participants gained 15 or more lines of vision with standard PRN treatment at one year (risk ratio (RR) 0.87, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.99; 4 trials, 2299 participants) and low-certainty evidence of a similar gain with treat-and-extend versus monthly regimens (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.36; 3 trials, 1169 participants). The mean change in central retinal thickness was a decrease of -166 µm in the monthly injection group; the MD compared with standard PRN was 21 µm (95% CI 6 to 32; 4 trials, 2215 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and with treat-and extend was 22 µm (95% CI 37 to -81 µm; 2 trials, 635 participants; low-certainty evidence), in favor of monthly injection. Only one trial (498 participants) measured quality of life and reported no evidence of a difference between regimens, but data could not be extracted (low-certainty evidence). Both PRN regimens (standard and 'treat-and-extend') used fewer injections than monthly regimens (standard PRN: MD -4.6 injections, 95% CI -5.4 to -3.8; 4 trials, 2336 participants; treat-and-extend: -2.4 injections, 95% CI -2.7 to -2.1 injections; moderate-certainty evidence for both comparisons). Two trials provided cost data (1105 participants, trials conducted in the US and the UK). They found that cost differences between regimens were reduced if bevacizumab rather than aflibercept or ranibizumab were used, since bevacizumab was less costly (low-certainty evidence). PRN regimens were associated with a reduced risk of endophthalmitis compared with monthly injections (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.13, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.46; 6 RCTs, 3175 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Using data from all trials included in this review, we estimated the risk of endophthalmitis with monthly injections to be 8 in every 1000 people per year. The corresponding risk for people receiving PRN regimens was 1 in every 1000 people per year (95% CI 0 to 4). Three trials (1439 participants) compared an extended-fixed regimen (number of injections reported in only one large trial: 7.5 in one year) with monthly injections. There was moderate-certainty evidence that BCVA at one year was similar for extended-fixed and monthly injections (MD in BCVA change compared to extended-fixed group: -1.3 letters, 95% CI -3.9 to 1.3; RR of gaining 15 letters or more: 0.94, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.10). The change in central retinal thickness was a decrease of 137 µm in the monthly group; the MD with the extended-fixed group was 8 µm (95% CI -11 to 27; low-certainty evidence). The frequency of endophthalmitis was lower in the extended-fixed regimen compared to the monthly group, but this estimate was imprecise (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.11; low-certainty evidence). If we assumed a risk of 8 cases of endophthalmitis in 1000 people receiving monthly injections over one year, then the corresponding risk with extended-fixed regimen was 2 in 1000 people (95% CI 0 to 9). Other evidence comparing different extended-fixed or PRN regimens yielded inconclusive results. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found that, at one year, monthly regimens are probably more effective than PRN regimens using seven or eight injections in the first year, but the difference is small and clinically insignificant. Endophthalmitis is probably more common with monthly injections and differences in costs between regimens are higher if aflibercept or ranibizumab are used compared to bevacizumab. This evidence only applies to settings in which regimens are implemented as described in the trials, whereas undertreatment is likely to be common in real-world settings. There are no data from RCTs on long-term effects of different treatment regimens.

Cost-effectiveness of Anti-VEGF treatments for age-related macular degeneration: a Brazilian perspective.

PURPOSE: To study the cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab and bevacizumab for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration. METHODS: We used a decision tree model to analyze the cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab and bevacizumab for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration, from the Brazilian Public Health System (SUS) perspective. Ranibizumab and bevacizumab were administered to patients with the same treatment procedure, and the difference in treatment costs was calculated based on the cost of the drugs. Direct costs were estimated using the information provided by the Brazilian SUS. Effectiveness in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) was calculated based on the utility values for visual impairment. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated by comparing both treatments. The analytical horizon was one year. RESULTS: The decision tree analysis showed that the difference in treatment effectiveness was 0.01 QALY. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio showed that ranibizumab treatment required an incremental annual cost of more than R$ 2 million to generate 1 additional QALY, as compared to bevacizumab. CONCLUSIONS: From the Brazilian SUS perspective, bevacizumab is more cost-effective than ranibizumab for the treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Its use could allow potential annual savings in health budget.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of Anti-VEGF treatments for age-related macular degeneration: a Brazilian perspective / Estudo de custo-efetividade de tratamentos para a degeneração macular relacionada à idade: uma perspectiva brasileira

ABSTRACT Purpose: To study the cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab and bevacizumab for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration. Methods: We used a decision tree model to analyze the cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab and bevacizumab for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration, from the Brazilian Public Health System (SUS) perspective. Ranibizumab and bevacizumab were administered to patients with the same treatment procedure, and the difference in treatment costs was calculated based on the cost of the drugs. Direct costs were estimated using the information provided by the Brazilian SUS. Effectiveness in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) was calculated based on the utility values for visual impairment. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated by comparing both treatments. The analytical horizon was one year. Results: The decision tree analysis showed that the difference in treatment effectiveness was 0.01 QALY. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio showed that ranibizumab treatment required an incremental annual cost of more than R$ 2 million to generate 1 additional QALY, as compared to bevacizumab. Conclusions: From the Brazilian SUS perspective, bevacizumab is more cost-effective than ranibizumab for the treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Its use could allow potential annual savings in health budget.

RESUMO Objetivo: Estudar o custo-efetividade do ranibizumabe e bevacizumabe no tratamento da degeneração macular relacionada à idade neovascular. Métodos: Utilizamos um modelo de árvore de decisão para analisar a relação custo-efetividade do ranibizumabe e bevacizumabe no tratamento da degeneração macular relacionada à idade, sob a perspectiva do Sistema Único de Saúde. O ranibizumabe e bevacizumabe foram administrados a pacientes com o mesmo procedimento de tratamento, e a diferença nos custos do tratamernto foi calculada com base no custo dos medicamentos. Os custos diretos foram estimados utilizando as informações fornecidas pelo SUS. A efetividade foi determinada em anos de vida ajustados pela qualidade (QALY) baseados em valores de utilidade em deficiênciavisual. A razãoincremental custo-efetividadefoicalculada comparando os dois tratamentos. O horizonte analítico foi de um ano. Resultados: A análise da árvore de decisão mostrou que a diferença na efetividade do tratamento foi de 0,01 QALY. A razão incremental de custo-efetividade mostrou que o tratamento com ranibizumabe exigiu um custo anual incremental de R$ 2 milhões para gerar um QALY adicional, em comparação ao bevacizumabe. Conclusões: Do ponto de vista do SUS, o bevacizumabe é mais custo-efetivo que o ranibizumabe no tratamento da degeneração macular relacionada à idade neovascular. O seu uso poderia gerar uma grande economia anual para o orçamento em saúde.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of intravitreal aflibercept in the treatment of diabetic macular edema in China.

Aim: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of intravitreal aflibercept compared with macular laser photocoagulation and ranibizumab for diabetic macular edema (DME) in China. Methods: A Markov model was developed to reflect the vision changes in DME patients. Parameters were estimated from VIVID-EAST trial data, published literature and physician surveys. Results: In a 20-year horizon, intravitreal aflibercept was associated with 7.825 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and 217,841 Chinese Yuan Renminbi (CNY), laser photocoagulation was associated with 7.189 QALYs and 135,489 CNY, and ranibizumab was associated with 7.462 QALYs and 222,477 CNY. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were 129,397 CNY/QALY and -12,774 CNY/QALY for intravitreal aflibercept versus laser photocoagulation and ranibizumab, respectively. Conclusion: Intravitreal aflibercept was considered as a cost-effective strategy for DME when compared with laser photocoagulation; it was considered as a dominant strategy when compared with ranibizumab.

Cost-effectiveness of Intravitreal Ranibizumab With Verteporfin Photodynamic Therapy Compared With Ranibizumab Monotherapy for Patients With Polypoidal Choroidal Vasculopathy.

Importance: The EVEREST II trial showed that for patients with polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy (PCV), intravitreal ranibizumab in combination with verteporfin photodynamic therapy improves visual acuity relative to ranibizumab monotherapy. However, whether combination therapy is incrementally cost-effective relative to monotherapy during a lifetime is unclear. Objective: To assess the incremental cost-effectiveness of combination therapy compared with ranibizumab monotherapy in patients with PCV. Design, Setting, and Participants: This model-based, economic evaluation used 2018 unit cost data from a tertiary eye hospital in Singapore, first- and second-year outcomes and resource use data from a multicenter trial across various Asian countries (EVEREST II) to model a hypothetical cohort of patients with symptomatic PCV. Scenario analyses and deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to examine uncertainty. Data were collected from October 2018 through April 2019 and analyzed from March through October 2019. Interventions: This model used data from the EVEREST II trial, in which all participants were given 0.5 mg of intravitreal ranibizumab once every 4 weeks for the first 3 months. Subsequent administration occurred as needed. For participants receiving combination therapy, standard fluence (50 J/cm3) photodynamic therapy with 6-mg/m2 verteporfin was administered once during the first 3 months and thereafter as needed. Main Outcomes and Measures: Incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for combination therapy relative to monotherapy for patients with PCV. Results: In this model based on a cohort of 1000 patients aged 68 years, a patient with PCV incurred a total cost in Singapore dollars (SGD) of 92 327 (US $67 399) with combination therapy and SGD 92 371 (US $67 431) with monotherapy during a lifetime horizon, generating a modest cost savings of SGD 44 (US $32) per patient undergoing combination therapy. Lifetime QALYs were estimated to be 7.87 for combination therapy and 7.85 for monotherapy, for an incremental gain of 0.02 QALYs. Combination therapy remained cost-saving or cost-effective in all lifetime scenarios modeled, but during shorter time horizons and at lower monotherapy costs, it may not be cost-effective. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found combination therapy to be a dominant (more effective and less costly) strategy, being similar in costs and slightly more effective than ranibizumab monotherapy during a lifetime horizon. However, decreasing the time horizon to less than 10 years and/or reductions in the cost of monotherapy may result in combination therapy no longer being cost-effective.

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.

Assessment of Patient Pain Experience During Intravitreal Ranibizumab and Aflibercept Injection.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the pain scores of the patients during intravitreal injection of ranibizumab and aflibercept based on patient feedback. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-two eyes of 72 patients, who had not previously undergone any intravitreal injection procedures, were included in this study. Thirty-eight patients received ranibizumab, and 34 patients received aflibercept injections. The pain was measured by visual analog scale (VAS). Patients were asked to rate their pain experienced during the injection between 0 (no pain) and 10 (worst pain ever felt) on VAS just after the injection. RESULTS: VAS pain scores in ranibizumab and aflibercept groups were 3.28 ± 2.45 and 4.20 ± 2.30, respectively. There was a significant difference in average VAS pain scores between groups (P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: VAS pain scores in aflibercept group were found to be significantly higher than the scores in the ranibizumab group.

Treatment compliance and adherence among patients with diabetic retinopathy and age-related macular degeneration treated by anti-vascular endothelial growth factor under universal health coverage.

PURPOSE: To analyze and compare loss to follow-up (LTFU) rates between patients with diabetic retinopathy (DR) and those with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) in patients, receiving treatment with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), under universal health coverage. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the relevant data of 1264 patients receiving anti-VEGF therapy, in this cohort study. The observation period ranged from September 01, 2015 to December 31, 2018. Intervals between each procedure and the subsequent follow-up examination were measured. Demographic data, visual acuity (VA), the type of transport for treatment access, and distance between the residence and clinic were evaluated as risk factors for LTFU. RESULTS: We collected data for 841 patients with nAMD (age, 81.0 (± 8.1 years)) and 423 patients with DR (age, 67.7 (± 12.1 years)). The rate of LTFU, for at least 6 months, was 28.8% and 2.9% for patients with DR and nAMD, respectively (p < 0.001). In the DR group, 18.9% patients were lost to follow-up exceeding > 12 months. Multivariate regression analysis showed that advanced age, lack of mobility, and need for assisted transport, poor final VA despite treatment, and decrease in vision during the observational period were independent risk factors for LTFU exceeding 12 months (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: We found a high long-term LTFU rate for patients with DR, despite treatment under universal health coverage. Considering the risk of disease progression, particularly in patients with chronic DR, strategies for better compliance and adherence to therapy should be considered for optimized patient care.

A Multinational Comparison of Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Use: The United States, the United Kingdom, and Asia-Pacific.

PURPOSE: A comparison of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) medication use across multiple countries. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Anti-VEGF medication use is now considered first-line treatment for numerous retinal diseases globally. Exploring medication choices, costs within each healthcare system, policy challenges, emerging treatments, and patient access all provide insight into a newly recognized and major public health issue. METHODS: All data presented in this review are available through the published English literature in PubMed, non-peer-reviewed trade publications, and reported surveys. The following search terms were used: anti-VEGF OR bevacizumab OR ranibizumab OR aflibercept OR pegaptanib OR conbercept AND trends OR survey OR cost OR patterns OR preference. Countries with large populations and available data included the United States, United Kingdom, China, India, Korea, Singapore, and Australia. Population and economic statistics were obtained from published reports from the World Bank, World Health Organization, and Commonwealth Fund. RESULTS: Anti-VEGF medication use and costs are significant aspects of patient and healthcare system expenditures in each nation and may have an especially large potential economic burden in India and China. Bevacizumab use comprises the majority of anti-VEGF medication use in the United States and Singapore, although aflibercept use is growing rapidly. Paradoxically, data demonstrate that there is a significant trend in medication choice toward ranibizumab and aflibercept among practice settings outside of the United States, such as the United Kingdom, China, South Korea, and Australia. The price of anti-VEGF medications ranged from US $30 (ziv-aflibercept) to US $1950 (ranibizumab and aflibercept). Ranibizumab's price ranged from US $240 in India to US $1950 in the United States. Conbercept in China costs approximately US $1150 per dose. CONCLUSIONS: Outside of the United States, many nations are using a majority of more expensive anti-VEGF medications, which may lead to increased costs and decreased access. Increasing the availability of safely compounded anti-VEGF medications will likely improve access, create patient/provider choice, and decrease relative healthcare costs for the growing burden of retinal diseases globally.

Intravitreal Ranibizumab for the Treatment of Visual Impairment Due to Choroidal Neovascularization Associated with Rare Diseases: Cost-Effectiveness in the UK.

INTRODUCTION: This study sought to determine the cost-effectiveness of intravitreal ranibizumab compared with best supportive care (BSC; considered to be no active treatment) for the treatment of visual impairment due to choroidal neovascularization (CNV) associated with causes other than neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) and pathologic myopia (PM) in a UK setting. METHODS: An individual patient-level simulation model was developed to estimate the lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of ranibizumab vs. BSC. Regression analyses, performed on patient-level data collected within the pivotal phase III MINERVA trial, modelled visual acuity (VA) progression while patients remained on treatment. Patient utilities were modelled as a function of VA in both eyes and resource use estimates were based on trial data or the literature. Costs were evaluated from the perspective of the UK National Health Service and personal social services, with future costs and health outcomes discounted at 3.5% per annum. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for intravitreal ranibizumab was £1363 per QALY compared to BSC and was associated with an incremental benefit of 1.06 QALYs and an incremental cost of £1444 per patient. Drug and administration costs of intravitreal ranibizumab were offset by the prevention of the development of blindness and its associated costs, while the increase in benefits was driven by a reduction in mortality risk and an improved health-related quality of life attributed to an improvement in VA. The findings were robust to a range of sensitivity analyses and ranibizumab consistently remained cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000-30,000 per QALY gained for all sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: Intravitreal ranibizumab is a highly cost-effective intervention for the treatment of CNV due to causes other than nAMD and PM as it delivers substantial QALY gains to patients while making cost savings vs. BSC. FUNDING: Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd.

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.

Quantitative assessment of macular contraction and vitreoretinal interface alterations in diabetic macular edema treated with intravitreal anti-VEGF injections.

BACKGROUND: Macular contraction after anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) injections for diabetic macular edema (DME) was evaluated by documenting the displacement of macular capillary vessels and epiretinal membrane (ERM) formation. METHODS: A total of 130 eyes were included in this retrospective study. The study group consisted of 63 eyes which had intravitreal anti-VEGF injections for DME, and the control group included 67 eyes without central DME. The study and the control groups were well balanced in terms of diabetes duration and HbA1c. The distances between the bifurcation of the macular capillary retinal vessels were measured, and ERM status was evaluated based on spectral-OCT findings on the initial and final visit. RESULTS: In the study group, the mean number of injections was 4.7 ± 2.6 (3-14). The mean follow-up time was 16.7 ± 7.8 months in the study group whereas it was 20.7 ± 10.9 months in the control group (p = 0.132). The change in distance measurements between the reference points on macular capillary vessels was significant in all lines except line c (p < 0.05 for lines a, b, d, e, and f) in the study group whereas it was significant in only line e in the control group (p = 0.007, paired samples test). However, when the change in macular thickness was accounted as a confounding factor, the change in distances between the references points from the initial visit to the final visit lost its significance (repeated measures ANCOVA, p > 0.05). During follow-up, the number of cases with ERM changed from 10 to 12 in the study group whereas it remained three in the control group. CONCLUSION: There was a displacement of macular capillary vessels which was associated with the change in macular thickness in eyes having anti-VEGF injections for DME. The number of ERM cases did not change significantly during the follow-up.

The cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab, ranibizumab and aflibercept for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration-A cost-effectiveness analysis from a societal perspective.

BACKGROUND: The discussion on the use of bevacizumab is still ongoing and often doctors are deterred from using bevacizumab due to legal or political issues. Bevacizumab is an effective, safe and inexpensive treatment option for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD), albeit unregistered for the disease. Therefore, in some countries ophthalmologists use the equally effective but expensive drugs ranibizumab and aflibercept. We describe the economic consequences of this dilemma surrounding AMD treatment from a societal perspective. METHODS: We modelled cost-effectiveness of treatment with ranibizumab (as-needed), aflibercept (bimonthly) and bevacizumab (as-needed). Effectiveness was estimated by systematic review and meta-analysis. The drug with the most favourable cost-effectiveness profile compared to bevacizumab was used for threshold analyses. First, we determined how much we overspend per injection. Second, we calculated the required effectiveness to justify the current price and the reasonable price for a drug leading to optimal vision. Finally, we estimated how much Europe overspends if bevacizumab is not first choice. RESULTS: Bevacizumab treatment costs €27,087 per year, about €4,000 less than aflibercept and €6,000 less than ranibizumab. With similar effectiveness for all drugs as shown by meta-analysis, bevacizumab was the most cost-effective. Aflibercept was chosen for threshold analyses. Aflibercept costs €943 per injection, but we determined that the maximum price to be cost-effective is €533. Alternatively, at its current price, aflibercept should yield about twice the visual gain. Even when optimal vision can be achieved, the maximum price for any treatment is €37,453 per year. Most importantly, Europe overspends €335 million yearly on AMD treatment when choosing aflibercept over bevacizumab. CONCLUSION: Bevacizumab is the most cost-effective treatment for AMD, yet is not the standard of care across Europe. The registered drugs ranibizumab and aflibercept lead to large overspending without additional health benefits. Health authorities should consider taking steps to implement bevacizumab into clinical practice as first choice.

Cost Evaluation of Early Vitrectomy versus Panretinal Photocoagulation and Intravitreal Ranibizumab for Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy.

PURPOSE: To evaluate costs and cost-utility of early vitrectomy (pars plana vitrectomy [PPV]) compared with panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) and intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) for proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) without diabetic macular edema. DESIGN: A decision analysis model of cost-utility. PARTICIPANTS: There were no participants. METHODS: A decision analysis was based on results from the Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network Protocol S comparing treatment of PRP with IVR (0.3 mg) in PDR without incident macular edema to model the total 2-year costs and outcomes for each treatment scenario. These values were compared with the 2-year hypothetical costs of early PPV for PDR. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services data were used to calculate associated modeled costs in a hospital/facility-based and nonfacility setting. Cost-utility was calculated on the basis of the preserved visual utility and estimated life years remaining. In addition, costs for lifetime treatment were modeled for all scenarios and used to calculate lifetime quality-adjusted life years (QALY) costs for each scenario. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the impact of the model's assumptions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost of treatment, utility, and cost per QALY. RESULTS: The modeled cost per QALY of treatment for PDR for 2 years of utility in the facility (nonfacility) setting was $163 988 ($102 559) in the PRP group, $436 992 ($326 424) in the IVR group, and $181 144 ($107 965) in the PPV group. Sensitivity analysis showed that both IVR and PPV groups would have equivalent costs per QALY over the first 2 years if 78% (facility) and 80% (nonfacility) of patients in the PPV group required additional treatment with IVR (at the dose of 10.1 injections as in Protocol S). Beyond 2 years, the cost per QALY in the facility (nonfacility) setting was calculated as $61 695 ($21 752) in the PRP group, $338 348 ($239 741) in the IVR group, and $63 942 ($22 261) in the PPV group. CONCLUSIONS: Early PPV as a strategy for treatment of PDR without macular edema demonstrates cost-utility similar to management with PRP and more favorable cost-utility compared with IVR in the short term. This advantage over IVR continues when lifetime costs are factored.