A Cost-Benefit Analysis of VEGF-Inhibitor Therapy for Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration in the United States.

PURPOSE: To perform a societal cost-benefit analysis comparing intravitreal bevacizumab (Avastin), ranibizumab (Lucentis), and aflibercept (Eylea) monotherapies for treating neovascular age-related macular degeneration (NVAMD). DESIGN: Cost-benefit analysis. METHODS: Center for Value-Based Medicine using published clinical trial and Medicare data. PATIENT POPULATION: 168,400 estimated 2018 U.S. patients with new-onset NVAMD. Procedure(s): cost-benefit analysis using 2018 U.S. real dollars. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: 11-year direct ophthalmic medical costs expended for bevacizumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept monotherapies were compared with ophthalmic and nonophthalmic direct medical, direct nonmedical, and indirect medical (productivity) costs saved by the therapies. RESULTS: Bevacizumab monotherapy had an individual, 11-year $14,772 treatment cost and net $357,680 societal return (11-year 2,421% return on investment [ROI]). Ranibizumab therapy cost $106,582 and returned $265,870 to society (249% ROI), whereas aflibercept treatment cost $61,811 and returned $310,611 to society (503% ROI). The 2018 NVAMD overall treatment cohort, 11-year net societal gain was $28.5 billion to patients and insurers, with $24.2 billion (84.9%) coming from bevacizumab therapy, $0.7 billion (2.5%) from ranibizumab therapy, and $3.6 billion (12.6%) from aflibercept therapy. Substituting bevacizumab for ranibizumab and aflibercept in the 2018 new-onset NVAMD patients would save an estimated $1.343 billion over 11 years. Vascular endothelial growth factor-inhibitor (VEGF-I) therapy in 2018 should contribute $12.2 billion to the Gross Domestic Product over 11 years. Late treatment would decrease this by 78% to $2.7 billion. CONCLUSIONS: Intravitreal NVAMD bevacizumab, ranibizumab and aflibercept monotherapies accrue considerable financial, ROIs to patients and insurers as they increase national wealth.

Microbial keratitis and clinical outcomes following penetrating and endothelial keratoplasty.

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to review the incidence, risk factors and outcomes of microbial keratitis after penetrating keratoplasty (PK) and endothelial keratoplasty (EK). METHODS: The electronic medical records at Wills Eye Hospital were queried for cases of microbial keratitis following PK or EK performed between 1 May 2007 and 1 September 2018. Charts were reviewed to obtain demographic data, transplant characteristics, details of microbial keratitis, graft survival and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: During the study period, 2098 transplants were performed in 1601 patients. Of these, 1267 (60.4%) were PKs and 831 (39.6%) were EKs. We identified 86 (4.1%) cases of subsequent microbial keratitis. The incidence of microbial keratitis after PK was significantly higher than after EK (5.9% versus 1.3%; p = 0.005). Furthermore, the rate of infection was higher after repeat transplants (either PK or EK) compared to initial keratoplasties (5.5% versus 3.4%; p = 0.02). Twenty-six (32.1%) grafts remained clear at most recent follow-up after microbial keratitis, and the proportion of clear grafts was higher after EK than PK (66.7% versus 27.8%; p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Rates of microbial keratitis were significantly higher after PK compared to EK, and repeat transplantation was a risk factor for microbial keratitis. To the best of our knowledge, there is no prior study in the literature evaluating microbial keratitis rates after PK and EK and comparing outcomes.

Endophthalmitis Rates and Clinical Outcomes Following Penetrating and Endothelial Keratoplasty.

PURPOSE: To evaluate endophthalmitis rates after penetrating keratoplasty (PK) and endothelial keratoplasty (EK) and to compare clinical outcomes. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: The medical and billing records of several large academic private practices in Philadelphia, PA were electronically queried for all surgical visits during which a PK or EK was performed between April 1, 2012 and August 31, 2018. Demographic information and transplant characteristics were recorded for each patient and office visit. An additional query was performed to identify all cases of endophthalmitis based on diagnosis and procedure billing codes. Charts of patients with endophthalmitis were individually reviewed, and information was collected on triggering factors, clinical evaluation at presentation, management, culture data, visual outcomes, and graft survival rates. The main outcome measure was incidence of presumed infectious endophthalmitis following PK or EK. RESULTS: During the study period, 1676 PKs and 2292 EKs for 3069 patients were performed. The mean age of patients in this transplant cohort was 66.4 (± 17.5) years and 54.6% of patients were women. Sixteen cases of endophthalmitis occurred during the study period; 12 cases of endophthalmitis occurred after PK and 4 cases occurred after EK. The rate of endophthalmitis after EK (4 of 2292; 0.2%) was significantly lower than that after PK (12 of 1676; 0.7%) (P = .01). In addition, the odds of developing endophthalmitis after PK or EK performed in conjunction with anterior vitrectomy were significantly higher than after either PK or EK alone (odds ratio 8.66; 95% confidence interval 2.98-25.18; P < .001). Visual acuity outcomes were poorer after PK-related endophthalmitis than EK-associated cases (P = .01). The rate of graft failure at final follow-up was significantly higher in post-PK endophthalmitis (P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: In this large cohort of patients undergoing either PK or EK, rates of endophthalmitis were low for both procedures and significantly lower for EK compared with PK. Eyes with endophthalmitis after PK had poorer visual acuity outcomes and graft prognosis compared with those with endophthalmitis after EK.