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.

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.

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.

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

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

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 effectiveness of pomalidomide in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma in Sweden.

BACKGROUND: Multiple myeloma (MM) patients who have progressed following treatment with both bortezomib and lenalidomide have a poor prognosis. In this late stage, other effective alternatives are limited, and patients in Sweden are often left with best supportive care. Pomalidomide is a new anti-angiogenic and immunomodulatory drug for the treatment of MM. Our objective was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of pomalidomide as an add-on to best supportive care in patients with relapsed and refractory MM in Sweden. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We developed a health-economic discrete event simulation model of a patient's course through stable disease and progressive disease, until death. It estimates life expectancy, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs from a societal perspective. Effectiveness data and utilities were taken from the MM-003 trial comparing pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone with high-dose dexamethasone (HIDEX). Cost data were taken from official Swedish price lists, government sources and literature. RESULTS: The model estimates that, if a patient is treated with HIDEX, life expectancy is 1.12 years and the total cost is SEK 179 976 (€19 100), mainly indirect costs. With pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone, life expectancy is 2.33 years, with a total cost of SEK 767 064 (€81 500), mainly in drug and indirect costs. Compared to HIDEX, pomalidomide treatment gives a QALY gain of 0.7351 and an incremental cost of SEK 587 088 (€62 400) consisting of increased drug costs (59%), incremental indirect costs (33%) and other healthcare costs (8%). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is SEK 798 613 (€84 900) per QALY gained. CONCLUSION: In a model of late-stage MM patients with a poor prognosis in the Swedish setting, pomalidomide is associated with a relatively high incremental cost per QALY gained. This model was accepted by the national Swedish reimbursement authority TLV, and pomalidomide was granted reimbursement in Sweden.

Health economic changes as a result of implementation of targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma: national results from DARENCA study 2.

BACKGROUND: Limited data exist on the economic consequences of implementing targeted therapy (TT) for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in a real-world setting. OBJECTIVE: To analyze health care and productivity costs for TT implementation in a national cohort of patients. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Costs were measured per patient per year during a 2-yr follow-up during 2002-2005 (immunotherapy only) and 2006-2009 (TT implementation). All Danish patients with a diagnosis code for RCC and a procedure code for TT or immunotherapy were linked to the Danish National Patient Registry (contains information on all contacts with primary and secondary health sector). Health care and productivity costs were retrieved from the Danish case-mix system and Coherent Social Statistics, respectively. Drug costs were calculated separately from procedure codes and retail prices. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Generalized linear models were used to analyze costs adjusted for age, gender, and civil status. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 439 patients were included for 2006-2009 and 192 for 2002-2005. Comparison of the health care cost per patient per year between 2006-2009 and 2002-2005 revealed lower inpatient costs (€11 899 vs €19 944, adjusted relative risk [RR] 0.64), higher outpatient costs (€14 308 vs €6209, RR 2.39), lower radiotherapy costs (€194 vs €633, RR 0.31), higher radiology costs (€676 vs €191, RR 3.73), and higher separately calculated drug costs (€12 040 vs €3103, RR 3.82, all p<0.001) for the former. Total health care costs per patient per year did not significantly differ (€27 676 vs €27 856, RR 1.05, p=0.5) between the two periods. Income from employment did not significantly differ between 2006-2009 and 2002-2005 (RR 1.11, p=0.11) and costs associated with loss of productivity were €7852 and €8265, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A different pattern of health care costs were observed but total health care costs per patient per year did not significantly differ after implementation of TT for patients with mRCC. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this nationwide study, we found changes in the pattern of health care costs for patients with metastatic kidney cancer after implementation of targeted therapy compared to an immunotherapy control period; however, total health care costs and income from employment were without significant changes.

[The cost study of first- line treatment of metastatic colorectal carcinoma with bevacizumab- containing regimen in the Czech Republic]. / Analýza nákladu na 1. linii lécby metastatického kolorektálního karcinomu pri podání rezimu s bevacizumabem -  data z reálné klinické praxe v Ceské republice.

BACKGROUND: Bevacizumab, a humanized monoclonal IgG antibody against the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), is reimbursed in combination with chemotherapy for the first and subsequent line treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in the Czech Republic. However, its high cost is a potentially limiting factor. We assessed the cost of bevacizumab in the treatment of mCRC in a comprehensive cancer center. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 218 patients were included in our analysis. Cost data (examination, medication, hospitalization) were collected since the initiation of bevacizumab treatment to any tumor response (RECIST criteria: complete response -  CR, partial response -  PR, stable disease -  SD, progressive disease -  PD) and/ or to death. Minimal followup for all patients was 28 months. Costs were valued in Czech crowns (CZK) and converted to EUR (1€ = 25.14 CZK). RESULTS: PD was recorded in 194 patients (89% of patients). The mean cost of treatment to PD (median TTP 9.1 months) was 1,002,076.30 CZK (39,859.84 EUR). The majority of costs to PD was made by medication -  917,048.60 CZK (36,477.67 EUR) per patient. The mean cost to response PR, CR or SD was 1,105,823.10 CZK (43,986.60 EUR) after median 9.8 months of treatment (recorded for 21 patients), medication formed 1,023,827.70 CZK (40,725.05 EUR). During the study, 170 patients (78%) died. The mean of the total costs since initiation of treatment to death (median OS 18.8 months) was 1,338,874.20 CZK (53,256.70 EUR) -  out of that, medication was 1,184,251.10 CZK (47,106.25 EUR) per patient. CONCLUSION: Targeted bio-logical therapy is the largest part of the costs of mCRC therapy. Cost of bevacizumab made up to 69% of costs to PD -  687,608.20 CZK ( 27,351.20 EUR ) per patient. The majority of the total cost was formed by targeted drug therapy (bevacizumab in 1st line therapy, cetuximab and panitumumab in 2nd and 3rd line therapy); 58% of total costs since initiation of treatment to death -  778,233.80 CZK (30,956 EUR) per patient.

Validation of dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound in predicting outcomes of antiangiogenic therapy for solid tumors: the French multicenter support for innovative and expensive techniques study.

OBJECTIVES: Dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound (DCE-US) has been used in single-center studies to evaluate tumor response to antiangiogenic treatments: the change of area under the perfusion curve (AUC), a criterion linked to blood volume, was consistently correlated with the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors response. The main objective here was to do a multicentric validation of the use of DCE-US to evaluate tumor response in different solid tumor types treated by several antiangiogenic agents. A secondary objective was to evaluate the costs of the procedure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective study included patients from 2007 to 2010 in 19 centers (8 teaching hospitals and 11 comprehensive cancer centers). All patients treated with antiangiogenic therapy were eligible. Dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound examinations were performed at baseline as well as on days 7, 15, 30, and 60. For each examination, a perfusion curve was recorded during 3 minutes after injection of a contrast agent. Change from baseline at each time point was estimated for each of 7 fitted criteria. The main end point was freedom from progression (FFP). Criterion/time-point combinations with the strongest correlation with FFP were analyzed further to estimate an optimal cutoff point. RESULTS: A total of 1968 DCE-US examinations in 539 patients were analyzed. The median follow-up was 1.65 years. Variations from baseline were significant at day 30 for several criteria, with AUC having the most significant association with FFP (P = 0.00002). Patients with a greater than 40% decrease in AUC at day 30 had better FFP (P = 0.005) and overall survival (P = 0.05). The mean cost of each DCE-US was 180&OV0556;, which corresponds to $250 using the current exchange rate. CONCLUSIONS: Dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound is a new functional imaging technique that provides a validated criterion, namely, the change of AUC from baseline to day 30, which is predictive of tumor progression in a large multicenter cohort. Because of its low cost, it should be considered in the routine evaluation of solid tumors treated with antiangiogenic therapy.

Unsupported off-label chemotherapy in metastatic colon cancer.

BACKGROUND: Newer systemic therapies have the potential to decrease morbidity and mortality from metastatic colorectal cancer, yet such therapies are costly and have side effects. Little is known about their non-evidence-based use. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using commercial insurance claims from UnitedHealthcare, and identified incident cases of metastatic colon cancer (mCC) from July 2007 through April 2010. We evaluated the use of three regimens with recommendations against their use in the National Comprehensive Cancer Center Network Guidelines, a commonly used standard of care: 1) bevacizumab beyond progression; 2) single agent capecitabine as a salvage therapy after failure on a fluoropyridimidine-containing regimen; 3) panitumumab or cetuximab after progression on a prior epidermal growth factor receptor antibody. We performed sensitivity analyses of key assumptions regarding cohort selection. Costs from a payer perspective were estimated using the average sales price for the entire duration and based on the number of claims. RESULTS: A total of 7642 patients with incident colon cancer were identified, of which 1041 (14%) had mCC. Of those, 139 (13%) potentially received at least one of the three unsupported off-label (UOL) therapies; capecitabine was administered to 121 patients and 49 (40%) likely received it outside of clinical guidelines, at an estimated cost of $718,000 for 218 claims. Thirty-eight patients received panitumumab and six patients (16%) received it after being on cetuximab at least two months, at an estimated cost of $69,500 for 19 claims. Bevacizumab was administered to 884 patients. Of those, 90 (10%) patients received it outside of clinical guidelines, at an estimated costs of $1.34 million for 636 claims. CONCLUSIONS: In a large privately insured mCC cohort, a substantial number of patients potentially received UOL treatment. The economic costs and treatment toxicities of these therapies warrant increased efforts to stem their use in settings lacking sufficient scientific evidence.

Costs associated with angiogenesis inhibitor therapies for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in clinical practice: results from a medical chart review study.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate costs for treatment of mRCC patients receiving angiogenesis inhibitors (AI) using resource utilization data from medical charts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed in two U.S. tertiary oncology centers. Non-trial mRCC patients treated from 04/2003 to 06/2008, ≥ 18 years old, and with ≥ 1 prescription for sunitinib (SU; n = 57), sorafenib (SOR; n = 62), or ≥ 1 intravenous (i.v.) administration bevacizumab (BEV; n = 25) as first AI were included. Per-patient-per-month (PPPM) costs ($2008) were estimated for drug, i.v. administration, office visits, procedures, and AE treatments. AI drug costs were estimated by applying Average Wholesale Price to treatment course. Office visit and procedure costs were based on private insurance reimbursement. Hospitalization costs were based on HCUP National Inpatient Sample charges for AEs and were converted to costs. ER visit cost was based on national average from Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. RESULTS: Median treatment duration (mo) was 10.5 (SU), 8.1 (SOR), 7.9 (BEV). Average daily oral dosage was 32 mg (SU), 690 mg (SOR); average dose per i.v. administration was 871 mg (BEV). Total PPPM costs were $7,945 (SU), $6,990 (SOR), $15,189 (BEV). AI drugs accounted for the majority of PPPM costs ($5,639 [SU], $5,214 [SOR], $13,664 [BEV]), followed by procedures ($1,420 [SU], $1,004 [SOR], $749 [BEV]), and AE treatments ($729 [SU], $636 [SOR], $291 [BEV]). CONCLUSIONS: BEV patients incurred about twice the cost of SU patients and more than twice the cost of SOR patients, mainly due to higher drug and i.v. administration costs. Patients who received SU incurred the highest cost for AE management.

Cost-effectiveness evaluation of sunitinib as first-line targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in Spain.

INTRODUCTION Sunitinib, an oral, multitargeted receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, delays disease progression, with a median overall survival (OS) of more than 2 years, improves quality of life and is becoming the first-line standard of care for metastatic renal carcinoma (mRCC). PURPOSE To assess the economic value of sunitinib as fi rst-line therapy in mRCC within the Spanish healthcare system. METHODS An adapted Markov model with a 10-year time horizon was used to analyse the cost effectiveness of sunitinib vs. sorafenib (SFN) and bevacizumab/interferon-α (BEV/IFN) as first-line mRCC therapy from the Spanish third-party payer perspective. Progression-free survival (PFS) and OS data from sunitinib, SFN and BEV/IFN pivotal trials were extrapolated to project survival and costs in 6-week cycles. Results, in progression-free life-years (PFLY), life years (LY) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) gained, expressed as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) with costs and benefits discounted annually at 3%, were obtained using deterministic and probabilistic analyses. RESULTS Sunitinib was more effective and less costly than both SFN (gains of 0.52 PFLY, 0.16 LY, 0.17 QALY) and BEV/IFN (gains of 0.19 PFLY, 0.23 LY, 0.16 QALY) with average cost savings/patients of €1,124 and €23,218, respectively. Using a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of €50,000/QALY, sunitinib achieved an incremental net benefit (INB) of €9,717 and €31,211 compared with SFN and BEV/IFN, respectively. At this WTP, the probability of sunitinib providing the highest INB was 75%. CONCLUSION Our analysis suggests that sunitinib is a costeffective alternative to other targeted therapies as first-line mRCC therapy in the Spanish healthcare setting.

Saving money on the PBS: ranibizumab or bevacizumab for neovascular macular degeneration?

The cost differential between these two drugs is no longer defensible.

[Economic evaluation of targeted biologic therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma]. / Analýza nákladu na cílenou biologickou lécbu pacientu s metastatickým karcinomem ledviny.

BACKGROUND: Targeted biologic therapy has been proven to be effective compared to the current therapy of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in clinical studies as well as in actual clinical practice, but its high cost is a potentially limiting factor. Since the local cost-effectiveness analysis is missing, we assessed the cost of sunitinib and sorafenib in the treatment of mRCC in a comprehensive cancer centre. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 31 patients were treated with sunitinib and/or sorafenib between 06/2006 and 09/2009 and then followed for at least 12 months. Clinical (disease progression, adverse events, dose reduction) and cost data (medication, examination, hospitalization) were assessed in the comprehensive cancer centre (1 Euro = 25.78 CZK). RESULTS: The multikinase inhibitors were the second line treatment for most patients after INF-alpha therapy failure (86.7%). The mean cost per month to progression (PD) was 94,141.8 CZK/3651.7 Euro (sunitinib: 11 months to PD, cost to PD 1,267,648.5 CZK/49,171.8 Euro; sorafenib: 8 months to PD, cost to PD 896,670.1 CZK / 34,781.6 Euro). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 123,659.5 CZK / 4796.7 Euro per progression-free month in sunitinib vs sorafenib patients. The mean cost per month after PD was 45,767.0 CZK/1775.3 Euro with sequential therapy (sorafenib after sunitinib failure and vice-versa in more than half of patients) or best supportive care. 16 patients died during the study period with mean cost of 1,180,795.4CZK/45,802.8 Euro per 12 months (median between treatment initiation with sunitinib or sorafenib and death). 8 patients (26%) did not achieve progression (median progression-free survival to 09/2009: sunitinib 18 months, sorafenib 14 months). CONCLUSION: The cost of medication made up more than 95% of total costs to PD and more than 90% after PD. The cost per progression-free month was 123,659.5 CZK/4796.7 Euro in mRCC patients treated with sunitinib vs sorafenib.

Ranibizumab for the treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration: a review.

BACKGROUND: Choroidal neovascular (wet) age-related macular degeneration (ARMD) is becoming more prevalent worldwide as life expectancy continues to increase. Ranibizumab for intravitreal injection is an inhibitor of human vascular endothelial growth factor A approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of ARMD in June 2006. The actions of ranibizumab result in reduced cell proliferation, reduced formation of new blood vessels, and minimization of vascular leakage. OBJECTIVE: This paper reviews the pharmacologic and pharmacokinetic properties, clinical efficacy, and safety profile of ranibizumab, and pharmacoeconomic considerations associated with its use. METHODS: MEDLINE (1966-December 2006) and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970-December 2007) were searched for original research studies (Phase I, II, III, and IIIb), abstracts, and review articles concerning ranibizumab. The search terms were choroidal neovascularization, macular degeneration, Lucentis, ranibizumab, retinal degeneration, and vascular endothelial growth factor. Preference was given to Phase IlfllI studies. Selected information from the manufacturer of ranibizumab was also included. RESULTS: The efficacy of ranibizumab has been studied in 3 large clinical trials having the same primary efficacy end point, the proportion of patients losing <15 letters from baseline at 12 months (Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study chart). A multicenter, Phase III, randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled, 24-month clinical trial evaluated ranibizumab 0.3 and 0.5 mg in 716 patients with minimally classic or occult choroidal neovascularization (CNV) associated with ARMD. The results for the primary efficacy end point were 94.5% and 94.6% in the ranibizumab 0.3- and 0.5-mg groups, respectively, compared with 62.2% in the sham-injection group (P < 0.001, both ranibizumab groups vs sham injection); at 24 months, the corresponding proportions were 92.0%, 90.0%, and 52.9% (P < 0.001, both ranibizumab groups vs sham injection). A 2-year, Phase I/II, single-masked (masked patient and visual acuity examiner, unmasked investigator), multicenter trial evaluated the tolerability and efficacy of the combination of ranibizumab 0.5 mg and verteporfin photodynamic therapy (PDT) compared with verteporfin PDT alone in 162 patients with predominantly classic CNV. For the primary efficacy end point, the results were 90.5% for ranibizumab + PDT and 67.9% for PDT alone (P < 0.001). Receipt of ranibizumab + PDT was also associated with improved visual acuity, with 23.8% of patients gaining >15 letters from baseline, compared with 5.4% of those who received PDT alone (P = 0.003). Finally, an international Phase III, double-blind, active-controlled study compared ranibizumab 0.3 and 0.5 mg with verteporfin PDT in 423 patients with predominantly classic lesions associated with CNV secondary to ARMD. For the primary efficacy end point, the results were 35.7% for ranibizumab 0.3 mg, 40.3% for ranibizumab 0.5 mg, and 5.6% for verteporfin PDT (P < 0.001). Serious adverse ocular events, which occurred in association with < 0.1% of intravitreal injections in these trials, included retinal detachment and endophthalmitis. Less serious adverse ocular reactions occurring in < 2% of patients included intraocular inflammation and increased intraocular pressure. CONCLUSION: The findings of these 3 large clinical trials suggest that ranibizumab was effective and well tolerated in patient.

Do the results of the new trials change the standard treatment of metastatic renal cell cancer?

With the emergence of novel angiogenesis inhibitors, we are moving to a new era for patients with metastasized renal cell carcinoma. Since the results achieved reflect more a modification of the natural course of the disease than a cure, past achievements should not be neglected. Low-risk patients with clear cell histology, especially those with pulmonary metastasis only, should still be offered cytokine therapy. For intermediate-risk patients sunitinib is the treatment of choice. For high-risk patients, temsirolimus has to date provided the most convincing data, its availability is however limited. Data with sorafenib and sunitinib in the high-risk group are still anecdotal. The toxicity profiles of these 2 drugs are different and might particularly relate to patients with known cardiovascular co-morbidity. No sufficient data are available regarding sequential use. After cytokine failure, sorafinib is the treatment of choice. Patients should preferably be treated within clinical trials to answer unaddressed questions. It is well known that the strict entry criteria used within the clinical studies were applied very flexibly when drugs have been approved. These aspects require a careful follow-up to ascertain optimal use and to prevent misuse. Finally, the costs of prolonged treatment will be enormous, and only meaningful survival advantages will convince the health authorities to make these new treatments available for all patients.