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.

Association of Private Equity Firm Acquisition of Ophthalmology Practices with Medicare Spending and Use of Ophthalmology Services.

PURPOSE: Private equity (PE) firms increasingly are acquiring ophthalmology practices; little is known of their influence on care use and spending. We studied changes in use and Medicare spending after PE acquisition. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Seven hundred sixty-two clinicians in 123 practices acquired by PE between 2017 and 2018 and 34 807 clinicians in 20 549 never-acquired practices. METHODS: We analyzed Medicare fee-for-service claims (2012-2019) combined with a novel national database of PE acquisitions of ophthalmology practices using a difference-in-differences method within an event study framework to compare changes after a practice was acquired with changes in practices that were not acquired. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Numbers of beneficiaries seen; intravitreal injections and medications used for injections; and spending on ophthalmologist and optometrist services, ancillary services, and intravitreal injections. RESULTS: Comparing PE-acquired with nonacquired practices showed a 23.92% increase (n = 4.20 beneficiaries; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.73-6.67) in beneficiaries seen per PE optometrist per quarter and no change for ophthalmologists, while spending per beneficiary increased 5.06% ($9.66; 95% CI, -2.82 to 22.14). Spending on clinician services decreased 1.62% (-$2.37; 95% CI, -5.78 to 1.04), with ophthalmologist services increasing 5.46% ($17.70; 95% CI, -2.73 to 38.15) and optometrists decreasing 4.60% (-$5.76; 95% CI, -9.17 to -2.34) per beneficiary per quarter. Ancillary services decreased 7.56% (-$2.19; 95% CI, 4.19 to -0.22). Intravitreal injection costs increased 25.0% ($20.02; 95% CI, -1.38 to 41.41) with the number increasing 5.10% (1.83; 95% CI, -0.1 to 3.80). There was a 74.09% increase (8.38 injections; 95% CI, 0.01-16.74) in ranibizumab and a 12.91% decrease (-3.40 injections; 95% CI, -6.86 to 0.07) in bevacizumab after acquisition. The event study showed consistent and often statistically significant increases in ranibizumab injections and decreases in bevacizumab injections after acquisition. CONCLUSIONS: Although not all results reached statistical significance, this study suggested that PE acquisition of practices showed little or no overall effect on use or total spending, but increased the number of unique patients seen per optometrist and the use of expensive intravitreal injections. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

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.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of Aflibercept Monotherapy vs Bevacizumab First Followed by Aflibercept If Needed for Diabetic Macular Edema.

Importance: The DRCR Retina Network Protocol AC showed no significant difference in visual acuity outcomes over 2 years between treatment with aflibercept monotherapy and bevacizumab first with switching to aflibercept for suboptimal response in treating diabetic macular edema (DME). Understanding the estimated cost and cost-effectiveness of these approaches is important. Objective: To evaluate the cost and cost-effectiveness of aflibercept monotherapy vs bevacizumab-first strategies for DME treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation was a preplanned secondary analysis of a US randomized clinical trial of participants aged 18 years or older with center-involved DME and best-corrected visual acuity of 20/50 to 20/320 enrolled from December 15, 2017, through November 25, 2019. Interventions: Aflibercept monotherapy or bevacizumab first, switching to aflibercept in eyes with protocol-defined suboptimal response. Main Outcomes and Measures: Between February and July 2022, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) over 2 years was assessed. Efficacy and resource utilization data from the randomized clinical trial were used with health utility mapping from the literature and Medicare unit costs. Results: This study included 228 participants (median age, 62 [range, 34-91 years; 116 [51%] female and 112 [49%] male; 44 [19%] Black or African American, 60 [26%] Hispanic or Latino, and 117 [51%] White) with 1 study eye. The aflibercept monotherapy group included 116 participants, and the bevacizumab-first group included 112, of whom 62.5% were eventually switched to aflibercept. Over 2 years, the cost of aflibercept monotherapy was $26 504 (95% CI, $24 796-$28 212) vs $13 929 (95% CI, $11 984-$15 874) for the bevacizumab-first group, a difference of $12 575 (95% CI, $9987-$15 163). The aflibercept monotherapy group gained 0.015 (95% CI, -0.011 to 0.041) QALYs using the better-seeing eye and had an ICER of $837 077 per QALY gained compared with the bevacizumab-first group. Aflibercept could be cost-effective with an ICER of $100 000 per QALY if the price per dose were $305 or less or the price of bevacizumab was $1307 per dose or more. Conclusions and Relevance: Variability in individual needs will influence clinician and patient decisions about how to treat specific eyes with DME. While the bevacizumab-first group costs still averaged approximately $14 000 over 2 years, this approach, as used in this study, may confer substantial cost savings on a societal level without sacrificing visual acuity gains over 2 years compared with aflibercept monotherapy.

Assessment of Retinopathy of Prematurity Regression and Reactivation Using an Artificial Intelligence-Based Vascular Severity Score.

Importance: One of the biggest challenges when using anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents to treat retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) is the need to perform long-term follow-up examinations to identify eyes at risk of ROP reactivation requiring retreatment. Objective: To evaluate whether an artificial intelligence (AI)-based vascular severity score (VSS) can be used to analyze ROP regression and reactivation after anti-VEGF treatment and potentially identify eyes at risk of ROP reactivation requiring retreatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prognostic study was a secondary analysis of posterior pole fundus images collected during the multicenter, double-blind, investigator-initiated Comparing Alternative Ranibizumab Dosages for Safety and Efficacy in Retinopathy of Prematurity (CARE-ROP) randomized clinical trial, which compared 2 different doses of ranibizumab (0.12 mg vs 0.20 mg) for the treatment of ROP. The CARE-ROP trial screened and enrolled infants between September 5, 2014, and July 14, 2016. A total of 1046 wide-angle fundus images obtained from 19 infants at predefined study time points were analyzed. The analyses of VSS were performed between January 20, 2021, and November 18, 2022. Interventions: An AI-based algorithm assigned a VSS between 1 (normal) and 9 (most severe) to fundus images. Main Outcomes and Measures: Analysis of VSS in infants with ROP over time and VSS comparisons between the 2 treatment groups (0.12 mg vs 0.20 mg of ranibizumab) and between infants who did and did not receive retreatment for ROP reactivation. Results: Among 19 infants with ROP in the CARE-ROP randomized clinical trial, the median (range) postmenstrual age at first treatment was 36.4 (34.7-39.7) weeks; 10 infants (52.6%) were male, and 18 (94.7%) were White. The mean (SD) VSS was 6.7 (1.9) at baseline and significantly decreased to 2.7 (1.9) at week 1 (P < .001) and 2.9 (1.3) at week 4 (P < .001). The mean (SD) VSS of infants with ROP reactivation requiring retreatment was 6.5 (1.9) at the time of retreatment, which was significantly higher than the VSS at week 4 (P < .001). No significant difference was found in VSS between the 2 treatment groups, but the change in VSS between baseline and week 1 was higher for infants who later required retreatment (mean [SD], 7.8 [1.3] at baseline vs 1.7 [0.7] at week 1) vs infants who did not (mean [SD], 6.4 [1.9] at baseline vs 3.0 [2.0] at week 1). In eyes requiring retreatment, higher baseline VSS was correlated with earlier time of retreatment (Pearson r = -0.9997; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, VSS decreased after ranibizumab treatment, consistent with clinical disease regression. In cases of ROP reactivation requiring retreatment, VSS increased again to values comparable with baseline values. In addition, a greater change in VSS during the first week after initial treatment was found to be associated with a higher risk of later ROP reactivation, and high baseline VSS was correlated with earlier retreatment. These findings may have implications for monitoring ROP regression and reactivation after anti-VEGF treatment.

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.

The importance of monitoring wet age-related macular degeneration patients during Coronavirus disease 19 pandemic: A retrospective study of assessment of functional and structural outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: Intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) injections are the gold standard treatment for wet age-related macular degeneration (wet AMD). Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has led to the cancellation of many scheduled intravitreal anti-VEGF injection visits. We compared the functional and structural visual outcomes of wet AMD patients who did not adhere to their planned intervals (group 1) with those who did (group 2). METHODS: Wet AMD patients of Swiss Visio Montchoisi and RétinElysée were included. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and optical coherence tomography (OCT) changes between their first visit after the end of the first national lockdown in Switzerland (27 April 2020, first post-lockdown visit) and their last visit before the beginning of the first national lockdown in Switzerland (13 March 2020, last pre-lockdown visit) were assessed. The BCVA outcome was defined as unfavorable when there was a loss of≥5 ETDRS letters in the first post-lockdown visit compared to the BCVA at last pre-lockdown visit. The OCT outcome was defined as unfavorable when there was an increase in at least one of the parameters, intraretinal fluid (IRF), subretinal fluid (SRF), or pigment epithelial detachment (PED), at the first post-lockdown visit compared to the last pre-lockdown visit. MAIN RESULTS: Group 1 (89 patients, 109 eyes) had a 13.41% greater rate of unfavorable BCVA outcomes and a 38.27% greater rate of unfavorable OCT outcomes than group 2 (96 patients, 122 eyes) (P=0.04, P<0.0001, respectively). Multivariate analysis showed that the more the patients deviated from their programmed injections and the higher the BCVA pre-lockdown, the higher the rate of unfavorable BCVA outcomes (P=0.03 and P=0.02, respectively). OCT outcomes were not a predictive factor for an unfavorable BCVA outcome. CONCLUSIONS: The cancellation of many intravitreal anti-VEGF injection appointments resulted in worse functional and structural outcomes in wet AMD patients. The COVID-19 pandemic led many patients to refrain from their routine intravitreal anti-VEGF injection appointments, allowing us to analyze the role of designated intervals in the treatment of wet AMD. During any future lockdown due to COVID-19 or similar circumstances, continuity of care for wet AMD patients should be maintained.

Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Treatment Discontinuation and Interval in Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration in the United States.

PURPOSE: To assess the association between treatment interval and likelihood of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) discontinuation among patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) in a real-world setting in the United States. DESIGN: Retrospective clinical cohort study. METHODS: Health insurance claims data from the IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental databases were retrospectively reviewed to identify adults with nAMD who received anti-VEGF for the first time between July 1, 2011, and June 30, 2017. The proportion of discontinued patients was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves. Cox proportional hazards models were used to examine the association between treatment intervals at 24 months and anti-VEGF discontinuation. RESULTS: The analysis included 8167 patients on continuous, unilateral anti-VEGF treatment for at least 24 months. Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics were well balanced between treatment interval groups. The overall rate of discontinuation from 24 months until 60 months after treatment initiation was 30.4%. At 60 months, patients on shorter treatment intervals were more likely to remain on treatment than those on longer intervals, ranging from 76.8% (4-week interval group) to 60.6% (>12-week interval group) and corresponding to a 28% lower likelihood (HR [SE] 0.72 [0.12], P < .01) and 55% higher likelihood of discontinuing treatment (HR [SE] 1.55 [0.07], P < .01), respectively, compared with the 8-week group. CONCLUSIONS: nAMD patients on longer anti-VEGF treatment intervals at 24 months had consistently higher discontinuation rates than patients on shorter intervals in the following years. This highlights the need to support and educate patients on long treatment intervals to continue with their treatment.

Assessment of the perception of healthcare barriers and the impact of intravitreal injections on neovascular age-related macular degeneration.

AIM: To evaluate the perception of barriers in healthcare and the impact of intravitreal injections in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). METHODS: Cross-sectional study including 108 patients with nAMD in treatment with intravitreal injections. The patients answered a questionnaire with 26 questions (score from 1 to 5) divided in three sections: 1) the disease and its treatment with injections, 2) healthcare barriers and 3) new technologies. RESULTS: The mean age was 80.4 ±â€¯7.0 years and visual acuity (VA) was 75.2 ±â€¯12.4 letters. The main barriers in healthcare were long waiting times (72%), followed by other comorbidities (10%). Some 63% of patients have to wait between 3 and 5 h to attend their clinical visit. Significant anxiety due to the injections (2.8 ±â€¯1.3) was observed, being present in 71% of the cases the day before. A great fear of blindness and losing independence was observed (4.4 ±â€¯0.9 and 4.3 ±â€¯1.1), with no differences in relation to VA, age or sex (p ≥ 0.135). Moreover, 28% of the patients reported that it was quite or very difficult for them to attend the clinical visit, with 69% of the total showing great interest in having a diagnostic device at home. CONCLUSION: The nAMD and its treatment represent a significant burden on patients, among whom there is a great fear of blindness and of losing their independence, the main barrier being the long waiting time for the clinical visit.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of brolucizumab versus aflibercept for the treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) in Italy.

BACKGROUND: Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a common and chronic eye condition characterized by the presence of progressive degenerative abnormalities in the central retina (macula). Notably, neovascular, or wet, AMD (nAMD) occurs when new, abnormal blood vessels grow under the macula causing scarring of the macula itself and resulting in a loss of central vision, visual distortion, and an impaired capacity of perceiving colour contrast and intensity. Brolucizumab, a new generation anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) monoclonal antibody, was approved by the European Medicines Agency for the treatment of nAMD. The aim of this analysis is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness profile of brolucizumab, compared to the main therapeutic alternative available (aflibercept), for the treatment of nAMD. METHODS: The simulation of costs and outcomes was carried out using a Markov model over a time horizon of 15 years. In base-case, treatment effectiveness inputs for brolucizumab and aflibercept were extracted from the HAWK and HARRIER studies and from a network meta-analysis. The Italian National Healthcare Service (NHS) perspective was considered, therefore only healthcare direct costs (treatment acquisition, administration, adverse events, disease monitoring) were analysed. In the alternative scenarios, the societal perspective and a prolonged time horizon were considered. Model robustness was tested through sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, brolucizumab was dominant over aflibercept (+ 0.11 years QALY gained and -€15,679 costs). Both one-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness and reliability of base-case results. The results of the probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that when the willingness to pay is equal to €50,000 per QALY gained, brolucizumab would be dominant in 84% of simulations and in the remaining simulations brolucizumab would be cost-effective compared to aflibercept. Results of the alternative scenarios and sensitivity analyses confirmed the results of base-case. CONCLUSION: The cost-utility analysis shows that brolucizumab is dominant over aflibercept. Treatment with brolucizumab reduces the economic impact of nAMD and determined a slight increase of quality-adjusted survival. This analysis gives a high level of confidence that the treatment with brolucizumab would reduce the burden of intravitreal injections, compared to aflibercept, a relevant therapeutic alternative in Italy.

Retrospective Analysis of the Pharmaco-Utilization of VEGF Inhibitors and Health Care Costs among Patients with Wet Age-Related Macular Degeneration and Other Ocular Diseases in Italy.

This Italian retrospective study aimed to analyze the pharmaco-utilization of anti-VEGF drugs and health care costs among patients with wet age-related macular degeneration (wAMD) or other ocular diseases. A retrospective analysis was performed on administrative databases of Italian entities covering approximately six million individuals. Across January 2010-December 2017, patients aged ≥50 years with a prescription of intravitreal anti-VEGFs were included as "wAMD" patients [by wAMD hospitalization or intravitreal injections] or as "other ocular diseases" patients [by hospitalization for other ocular disorders or intravitreal injections, with concomitant diabetes diagnosis or dexamethasone treatment]. The date of first matching of inclusion criteria was index-date. wAMD-cohort. Overall, 3879 patients were included; at index-date, 82.2% were treated with Ranibizumab, 15.8% with Aflibercept, and 2% with Pegaptanib. During the follow-up, the mean/annual anti-VEGF prescription [3.6 (first-year)-0.8 (third-year)] and the total expenditure [5799.84 € (first-year)-3212.84 € (third-year)] decreased. Other ocular diseases-cohort. Overall, 2646 patients were enclosed; 85.9% were treated with Ranibizumab, 13.5% with Aflibercept, and 0.6% with Pegaptanib. During the follow-up, the mean/annual anti-VEGF prescription [3.3 (first-year)-0.5 (third-year)] and the total cost [7196.83 € (first-year)-5162.68 € (third-year)] decreased. This observational study highlighted a decline in anti-VEGF prescriptions over time in both cohorts, suggesting a trend of under-treatment that could worsen the patients' clinical outcomes and increase health care resource consumption.

Managed care opportunities and approaches to select treatment for sight preservation.

Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapies have become the mainstay of treatment for both diabetic macular edema and neovascular age-related macular degeneration. This treatment is imperative for vision preservation including visual acuity. However, treatment burdens include high costs, frequent injections, continued visual loss, and loss of ability to perform day-to-day functions. Although clinical trial data have provided insights to treatment options and protocols, real-world patient experiences and adherence to therapies do not often mimic clinical trials as patients cannot fully adhere to their treatment schedule, leading to poor disease outcomes. Payers may consider various strategies such as step therapies, fee schedule management, and driving utilization through specialty pharmacies to contain costs. However, it is important to recognize not all patients will respond to a one-size-fits-all approach to treatment, warranting a more personalized approach.

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.

Assessment of intravitreal anti-VEGF drugs and dexamethasone for retinal diseases in real world setting: A multi-centre prospective study from Southern Italy.

Describe drug utilisation and clinical outcomes of intravitreal anti-VEGF drug and dexamethasone use in the real-world setting in Southern Italy using data from multi-centre study of retinal disease. Clinical data of retinal disease patients treated with anti-VEGF drugs and dexamethasone implant in 6 out-patient ophthalmology centres from Southern Italy were collected by means of an electronic case report form. Patients receiving at least one intravitreal injection/implant of the study drugs were followed for up to two years and described in terms of demographics and clinical characteristics. Drug utilisation patterns were described. A sign-rank test was used to compare clinical data on visual acuity and other ophthalmic parameters from baseline at different follow-up times for each indication. Data from 1327 patients was collected. Most patients were diagnosed with age-related macular degeneration (AMD) (660, 49.7%), followed by diabetic macular oedema (423, 31.9%), retinal vein occlusion (164, 12.3%), and myopic choroidal neovascularization (80, 6.0%). Patients were followed for a median of 10.3 months (interquartile range: 3.6 - 24.7 months). Mean patient age was 69.7 (±10.9) years and 54.2% were males. Ranibizumab (55.4%) and aflibercept (27.5%) were the most commonly used drugs. Baseline visual acuity significantly improved by about 0.05 to 0.1 logMAR at all follow-up times for AMD and RVO but less consistently for the other diseases. Intravitreal ranibizumab use accounted for half of all treatment for retinal diseases in a Southern Italian out-patient setting. Patients treated with anti-VEGF drugs for AMD and RVO in Southern Italy experienced significant improvement in VA.