RESPONSIVENESS OF THE NATIONAL EYE INSTITUTE VISUAL FUNCTION QUESTIONNAIRE-25 TO VISUAL ACUITY GAINS IN PATIENTS WITH DIABETIC MACULAR EDEMA: Evidence From the RIDE and RISE Trials.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the responsiveness of the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire-25 (NEI VFQ-25) in patients with diabetic macular edema using data from the RIDE and RISE trials. METHODS: Patients were randomized to monthly intravitreal ranibizumab 0.3 mg, 0.5 mg, or sham injections for 2 years. The NEI VFQ-25 was administered at baseline and at Months 6, 12, 18, and 24. The least-squares mean change in NEI VFQ-25 for ≥15 letters gained or lost was derived from analysis of covariance models. RESULTS: The mean improvement in NEI VFQ-25 composite score associated with a ≥15-letter gain in best-corrected visual acuity over 24 months was 9.0 (95% confidence interval, 6.3-11.7) points in RIDE and 7.1 (95% confidence interval, 4.7-9.6) points in RISE. In patients who lost ≥15 letters, the mean worsening in overall NEI VFQ-25 composite score was -6.6 (95% confidence interval, -13.6 to 0.5) in RIDE and -2.7 (95% confidence interval, -8.9 to 3.5) in RISE. CONCLUSION: This exploratory analysis of data from the RIDE and RISE studies supports the responsiveness of the NEI VFQ-25 to changes in best-corrected visual acuity over time in patients with diabetic macular edema.

SOCIETAL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH NEOVASCULAR AGE-RELATED MACULAR DEGENERATION IN THE UNITED STATES.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to use a cross-sectional prevalence-based health care economic survey to ascertain the annual, incremental, societal ophthalmic costs associated with neovascular age-related macular degeneration. METHODS: Consecutive patients (n = 200) with neovascular age-related macular degeneration were studied. A Control Cohort included patients with good (20/20-20/25) vision, while Study Cohort vision levels included Subcohort 1: 20/30 to 20/50, Subcohort 2: 20/60 to 20/100, Subcohort 3: 20/200 to 20/400, and Subcohort 4: 20/800 to no light perception. An interviewer-administered, standardized, written survey assessed 1) direct ophthalmic medical, 2) direct nonophthalmic medical, 3) direct nonmedical, and 4) indirect medical costs accrued due solely to neovascular age-related macular degeneration. RESULTS: The mean annual societal cost for the Control Cohort was $6,116 and for the Study Cohort averaged $39,910 (P < 0.001). Study Subcohort 1 costs averaged $20,339, while Subcohort 4 costs averaged $82,984. Direct ophthalmic medical costs comprised 17.9% of Study Cohort societal ophthalmic costs, versus 74.1% of Control Cohort societal ophthalmic costs (P < 0.001) and 10.4% of 20/800 to no light perception subcohort costs. Direct nonmedical costs, primarily caregiver, comprised 67.1% of Study Cohort societal ophthalmic costs, versus 21.3% ($1,302/$6,116) of Control Cohort costs (P < 0.001) and 74.1% of 20/800 to no light perception subcohort costs. CONCLUSION: Total societal ophthalmic costs associated with neovascular age-related macular degeneration dramatically increase as vision in the better-seeing eye decreases.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Ranibizumab for the Treatment of Diabetic Macular Edema.

PURPOSE: To assess the incremental, comparative effectiveness (patient value gain) and cost effectiveness (financial value gain) associated with 0.3-mg intravitreal ranibizumab injection therapy versus sham therapy for diabetic macular edema (DME). DESIGN: Value-Based Medicine (Center for Value-Based Medicine, Flourtown, PA) 14-year, cost-utility analysis using patient preferences and 2012 United States real dollars. PARTICIPANTS: Published data from the identical Ranibizumab Injection in Subjects with Clinically Significant Macular Edema with Center Involvement Secondary to Diabetes Mellitus (RISE and RIDE) clinical trials. METHODS: An incremental cost-utility analysis was performed using societal and third-party insurer cost perspectives. Costs and outcomes were discounted with net present value analysis at 3% per annum. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The incremental comparative effectiveness was measured in: (1) quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gain and (2) percent patient value (quality-of-life) gain. Cost effectiveness was quantified with the cost-utility ratio (CUR) measured as $/QALY. RESULTS: The 14-year, incremental patient value gain conferred by intravitreal ranibizumab therapy for diabetic maculopathy was 0.9981 QALY, equating to an 11.6% improvement in quality of life. The direct, ophthalmic medical cost for ranibizumab therapy in 1 eye was $30 116, whereas for 2 eyes it was $56 336. The direct, nonophthalmic, medical costs saved from decreased depression, injury, skilled nursing facility admissions, nursing home admissions, and other vision-associated costs totaled $51 758, resulting in an overall direct medical cost of $4578. The net mean societal cost for bilateral ranibizumab therapy was -$30 807. Of this total, decreased caregiver costs accrued a $31 406 savings against the direct medical costs, whereas decreased wage losses accrued a $3978 savings. The third-party insurer CUR for bilateral ranibizumab therapy was $4587/QALY. The societal cost perspective for bilateral therapy was -$30 807/QALY, indicating that ranibizumab therapy dominated sham therapy because it conferred both a positive QALY gain of 0.9981 and a financial value gain (positive financial return on investment) of $30 807 referent to the direct ophthalmic medical costs expended. CONCLUSIONS: Intravitreal ranibizumab therapy for the treatment of DME confers considerable patient (human) value gain. It also accrues financial value to patients, public and private insurers, and society.

Visual Impairment and Blindness Avoided with Ranibizumab in Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Whites with Diabetic Macular Edema in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate visual impairment (VI) and blindness avoided with intravitreal ranibizumab 0.3 mg treatment for central-involved diabetic macular edema (DME) among Hispanic and non-Hispanic white individuals in the United States. DESIGN: Population-based model simulating visual acuity (VA) outcomes over 2 years after diagnosis and treatment of DME. PARTICIPANTS: Visual acuity changes with and without ranibizumab were based on data from the RISE, RIDE, and DRCR Network trials. METHODS: For the better-seeing eye, VA outcomes included VI, defined as worse than 20/40 in the better-seeing eye, and blindness, defined as VA of 20/200 or worse in the better-seeing eye. Incidence of 1 or both eyes with central-involved DME in 2010 were estimated based on the 2010 United States population, prevalence of diabetes mellitus, and 1-year central-involved DME incidence rate. Sixty-one percent of incident individuals had bilateral DME and 39% had unilateral DME, but DME could develop in the fellow eye. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Cases of VI and blindness avoided with ranibizumab treatment. RESULTS: Among approximately 102 million Hispanic and non-Hispanic white individuals in the United States 45 years of age and older in 2010, an estimated 37 274 had central-involved DME and VI eligible for ranibizumab treatment. Compared with no ranibizumab treatment, the model predicted that ranibizumab 0.3 mg every 4 weeks would reduce the number of individuals with VI from 11 438 (95% simulation interval [SI], 7249-16 077) to 6304 (95% SI, 3921-8981), a 45% (95% SI, 36%-53%) reduction at 2 years. Ranibizumab would reduce the number of incident eyes with VA worse than 20/40 from 16 910 (95% SI, 10 729-23 577) to 9361 (95% SI, 5839-13 245), a 45% (95% SI, 38%-51%) reduction. Ranibizumab was estimated to reduce the number of individuals with legal blindness by 75% (95% SI, 58%-88%) and the number of incident eyes with VA of 20/200 or worse by 76% (95% SI, 63%-87%). CONCLUSIONS: This model suggests that ranibizumab 0.3 mg every 4 weeks substantially reduces prevalence of VI and legal blindness 2 years after initiating treatment among Hispanic and non-Hispanic white individuals in the United States with central-involved DME that has caused vision loss.

Vision-related function after ranibizumab treatment for diabetic macular edema: results from RIDE and RISE.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects of intravitreal ranibizumab (Lucentis; Genentech, Inc., South San Francisco, CA) treatment on patient-reported vision-related function, as assessed by 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI VFQ-25) scores, in patients with visual impairment secondary to center-involved diabetic macular edema (DME). DESIGN: Within 2 randomized, double-masked, phase 3 clinical trials (RIDE [A Study of Ranibizumab Injection in Subjects With Clinically Significant Macular Edema {ME} With Center Involvement Secondary to Diabetes Mellitus; NCT00473382] and RISE [A Study of Ranibizumab Injection in Subjects With Clinically Significant Macular Edema {ME} With Center Involvement Secondary to Diabetes Mellitus; NCT00473330]), the NEI VFQ-25 was administered at baseline and at the 6-, 12-, 18-, and 24-month follow-up visits. PARTICIPANTS: Three hundred eighty-two (100%) RIDE patients and 377 (100%) RISE patients. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to monthly injections of intravitreal ranibizumab 0.3 or 0.5 mg or sham. Study participants could receive macular laser for DME from month 3 onward if specific criteria were met. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Exploratory post hoc analysis of mean change from baseline in NEI VFQ-25 scores at 12 and 24 months. RESULTS: Across all treatment arms, 13% to 28% of enrolled eyes were the better-seeing eye. For all eyes in RIDE and RISE, the mean change in NEI VFQ-25 composite score improved more in ranibizumab-treated eyes at both the 12- and 24-month visits compared with sham treatment. For the better-seeing eyes at baseline, the mean change in composite score with 0.3 mg ranibizumab at the 24-month visit was 10.9 more (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.5-19.2) than sham for RIDE patients and 1.3 more (95% CI, -10.5 to 13.0) than sham for RISE patients. For the worse-seeing eyes at baseline, the mean change in composite score with 0.3 mg ranibizumab at the 24-month visit was 1.0 more (95% CI, -4.7 to 6.7) than sham for RIDE patients and 1.8 more (95% CI, -2.7 to 6.2) than sham for RISE patients. Similar results for most of these outcomes were seen with 0.5 mg ranibizumab. CONCLUSIONS: These phase 3 trials demonstrated that ranibizumab treatment for DME likely improves patient-reported vision-related function outcomes compared with sham, further supporting treatment of DME with ranibizumab.

Safety and efficacy of ixoberogene soroparvovec in neovascular age-related macular degeneration in the United States (OPTIC): a prospective, two-year, multicentre phase 1 study.

Background: Gene therapy, successfully used in rare, monogenetic disorders, may prove to be a durable management approach for common, polygenetic conditions, including neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). Repeated injections, oftentimes monthly, and possibly for decades, of vascular endothelial growth factor antagonists (anti-VEGF), is the standard for nAMD. We hypothesised that an in-office, intravitreal administration of ixoberogene soroparvovec (ixo-vec, formerly ADVM-022), a single-dose gene therapy encoding for the proven anti-VEGF protein, aflibercept, would transform retinal cells to continually produce aflibercept to minimise treatment burden in nAMD. Methods: In this two-year, open-label, prospective, multicentre phase 1 study, patients with nAMD responding to anti-VEGF were assigned to four cohorts differing by ixo-vec dose (2 × 1011 vs 6 × 1011 vector genomes (vg/eye)) and prophylactic steroids (oral prednisone vs topical difluprednate). The primary outcome was the type, severity, and incidence of ocular and systemic adverse events (AEs); secondary endpoints included vision, central subfield thickness (CST), and the number of supplemental injections. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03748784. Findings: Thirty patients with nAMD were enrolled between November 14, 2018 and June 30, 2020 at nine study sites in the United States. No systemic ixo-vec related AEs were noted. Across both dose groups the most common adverse event was anterior chamber cell, which was reported in 11 participants in the 6 × 1011 dose group and in 7 participants in the 2 × 1011 dose group; intraocular inflammation was responsive to topical corticosteroids, with no anterior chamber cells or vitreous cells observed in 2 × 1011 vg/eye patients at the end of the study. Vision and CST remained stable throughout two years with annualised anti-VEGF injections reduced by 80% (10.0 mean annualised anti-VEGF injections to 1.9) in 2 × 1011 vg/eye and 98% (9.8 mean annualised anti-VEGF injections to 0.2) in 6 × 1011 vg/eye cohorts. Interpretation: Ixo-vec was generally well-tolerated, maintained vision, and improved anatomical outcomes in nAMD, with a substantial reduction in anti-VEGF injections. A single administration of an in-office gene therapy, with vectorised protein with an already established clinical benefit, has the potential to revolutionise the management of common ocular disorders requiring ongoing, frequent therapeutic interventions. Funding: Adverum Biotechnologies.

Adherence to the American Diabetes Association retinal screening guidelines for population with diabetes in the United States.

PURPOSE: (1) To assess long-term adherence to American Diabetes Association guideline-recommended retinal screening among population with diabetes in the United States. (2) To determine factors associated with long-term adherence to routine eye screening exams. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted in adult patients with diabetes identified from January 2009 to December 2010. Patients were followed until disenrollment, death, or study end date (December 2013). A patient was defined as adherent when having at least one exam in each 12-month period if there was evidence of retinopathy, or at least one exam in each 24-month period if there was no evidence of retinopathy. Multivariate logistic regressions were used to investigate patient demographics and other baseline characteristics associated with adherence to guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 204,073 patients were identified; the mean age (SD) was 61 (13) years and 48% were female. Overall, 71.1% were adherent to the retinal screening guidelines during a median of 4.8 years of follow-up including 27.7% who received an eye exam every year. Patient socioeconomic status (younger age, black race, lower income/education), less comorbidity, insulin use, higher specialist copayment plans, and proxies for poor patient behavior (lower adherence to the oral hypoglycemic agents, less diabetes education, hemoglobin A1C >9%) were associated with nonadherence to routine eye screening exams. CONCLUSION: During nearly 5 years of follow-up, 28.9% of patients with diabetes were nonadherent to the retinal screening guidelines. Future research should focus on the development of interventions to address modifiable factors associated with nonadherence.

Endophthalmitis rates among patients receiving intravitreal anti-VEGF injections: a USA claims analysis.

PURPOSE: Intravitreal (IVT) injections of the anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents aflibercept, bevacizumab, and ranibizumab are commonly prescribed to treat neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). Studies comparing inflammation rates in large populations of patients receiving these agents and the treatment of ocular inflammation post-IVT anti-VEGF injections are scarce. In this study, we compared rates of endophthalmitis claims (sterile and infectious) following IVT anti-VEGF injections to determine the risk factors associated with developing endophthalmitis, and examined the claims for subsequent treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study of USA claims data examined the risk of developing endophthalmitis following IVT injection of aflibercept, bevacizumab, or ranibizumab in patients with nAMD between 11/18/2011 and 5/31/2013. The primary study outcome was occurrence of endophthalmitis within 30 days of a claim for an IVT anti-VEGF injection. Endophthalmitis rates were calculated separately for aflibercept, bevacizumab, and ranibizumab, followed by pairwise comparisons of endophthalmitis frequencies among the 3 treatments. RESULTS: This analysis included 818,558 injections from 156,594 patients with nAMD. The rates (% [n/N]) of endophthalmitis following aflibercept, bevacizumab, and ranibizumab IVT injections were 0.100% (136/135,973), 0.056% (268/481,572), and 0.047% (94/201,013), respectively. In a multivariate analysis, aflibercept was associated with a significantly higher risk of endophthalmitis vs ranibizumab (adjusted odds ratio, 2.19; 95% CI: 1.68-2.85; P<0.0001). The risk of endophthalmitis was similar for bevacizumab and ranibizumab. Within 14 days after endophthalmitis, 38.6% of cases received injectable antibiotics, 15.3% received injectable steroids, and 30.3% underwent vitrectomy. CONCLUSION: The rate of endophthalmitis was very low, but higher following IVT injection with aflibercept compared with both bevacizumab and ranibizumab in patients with nAMD.

The Burden of Retinal Venous Occlusion: An Assessment of Fellow Eyes in 1000 Cases.

OBJECTIVE: To assess retinal vein occlusion (RVO) clinical features to create a simulation model quantifying the preference-based, patient value gain (benefit) and cost-utility (cost-effectiveness) of RVO therapy. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis data integrated with patient utilities and an ocular cost-utility model for RVO. PARTICIPANTS: One thousand consecutive Wills Eye Hospital Retina Service RVO patients seen from January 2010 through April 2011. METHODS: Value-Based Medicine analysis assessing the demographic features and vision in affected eyes and fellow eyes of RVO patients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Presenting vision, final vision, conversion incidence of fellow eyes to RVO, and patient value gain in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). RESULTS: Among 1000 patients, 332 (33.2%) presented with central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO), 53 (5.3%) with hemiretinal vein occlusion (HRVO), and 615 (61.5%) with branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO). Mean follow-up for the entire RVO cohort was 3 years. One hundred and one patients (10.1%) had bilateral baseline RVO and, among the 826 unilateral cases seen more than once, 37 (4.5%) developed a fellow-eye RVO, a unilateral-to-bilateral conversion rate of 1.5%/year. Among the 101 baseline bilateral cases, 66% (66/101) had the same RVO variant bilaterally (CRVO/CRVO, HRVO/HRVO, or BRVO/BRVO). Mean CRVO baseline vision was 20/63-2 and final vision was 20/63-1 (P = 0.16). Thirty percent of patients had less than or equal to baseline fellow-eye vision. Within combined HRVO/BRVO cohorts, mean baseline vision was 20/50-2 and final vision was 20/50+1 (P = 0.0004). Thirty percent of patients also had less than or equal to baseline fellow-eye vision. The proportion of RVO patients with fellow-eye vision less than or equal to the RVO primary-eye baseline vision increased to 44% by year 16. CONCLUSIONS: Thirty percent of all RVO patients had less than or equal to baseline vision in the fellow eye. Among unilateral RVO cases, 1.5%/year developed fellow-eye RVO. These findings have implications for cost-utility analysis, because bilateral vision loss yields greater QALY loss and an increased financial burden compared with unilateral loss. Referent to total therapeutic QALY gain (100%), if a treated RVO was always considered the better-seeing eye, the actual clinical scenario demonstrates that the average CRVO patient gains 38% as much value and the average HRVO/BRVO patient gains 37% as much.

The comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab for neovascular macular degeneration revisited.

BACKGROUND: To compare a near decade of follow-up, newer control cohort data, use of both the societal and third party insurer cost perspectives, and integration of unilateral/bilateral therapy on the comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of intravitreal ranibizumab therapy for neovascular, age-related macular degeneration (AMD). METHODS: Value-Based Medicine®, 12-year, combined-eye model, cost-utility analysis employing MARINA and HORIZON clinical trial data. Preference-based comparative effectiveness outcomes were quantified in (1) QALY (quality-adjusted life-year) gain, and (2) percent improvement in quality-of-life, while cost-effectiveness outcomes were quantified in (3) the cost-utility ratio (CUR) and financial return-on-investment (ROI) to society. RESULTS: Using MARINA and HORIZON trial data and a meta-analysis control cohort after 24 months, ranibizumab therapy conferred a combined-eye patient value (quality-of-life) gain of 16.3%, versus 10.4% found in 2006. The two-year direct ophthalmic medical cost for ranibizumab therapy was $46,450, a 33.8% real dollar decrease from 2006. The societal cost perspective CUR was -$242,920/QALY, indicating a $282,517 financial return-on-investment (ROI), or 12.3%/year to society for direct ophthalmic medical costs expended. The 3rd party insurer CUR ranged from $21,199/QALY utilizing all direct, medical costs, to $69,591/QALY using direct ophthalmic medical costs. CONCLUSIONS: Ranibizumab therapy for neovascular AMD in 2015, considering treatment of both eyes, conferred greater patient value gain (comparative effectiveness) and improved cost-effectiveness than in 2006, as well as a large monetary return-on-investment to the Gross Domestic Product and nation's wealth. The model herein integrates important novel features for neovascular age-related macular degeneration, vitreoretinal cost effectiveness analyses, including: (1) treatment of both eyes, (2) a long-term, untreated control cohort, and (3) the use of societal costs.

Effect of Ranibizumab on the Decision to Drive and Vision Function Relevant to Driving in Patients With Diabetic Macular Edema: Report From RESTORE, RIDE, and RISE Trials.

IMPORTANCE: The potential effect of treatments for diabetic macular edema (DME) on driving should be of value to patients and clinicians, such as ophthalmologists and other physicians, who treat patients with diabetes mellitus. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of ranibizumab on driving and patient-reported vision function relevant to driving among patients with DME. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This exploratory post hoc analysis was conducted between October 1, 2011, and July 25, 2015, based on deidentified data from phase 3, multicenter, randomized clinical trials (RIDE, RISE, and RESTORE trials). Individuals assigned randomly to monthly sham, 0.3-mg ranibizumab, or 0.5-mg ranibizumab in RIDE and RISE or to macular laser, macular laser plus 0.5-mg ranibizumab (3-monthly doses, then as needed), or 0.5-mg (3-monthly doses, then as needed) in RESTORE. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Driving items from the National Eye Institute (NEI) Visual Function Questionnaire-25 (VFQ-25) at baseline through 24 months in RIDE/RISE (pooled) and through 12 months in RESTORE. RESULTS: A total of 71.2% of 753 patients in RIDE/RISE and 50.4% of 345 patients in RESTORE reported driving at baseline; at least 55% reported still driving at follow-up. Among those not driving at baseline in RIDE/RISE, at 12 months, 7.0% (95% CI, -5.0 to 19.0) more in the 0.3-mg group and 14.4% (95% CI, 1.1 to 27.7) more in the 0.5-mg group vs the sham group reported driving. Among those not driving at baseline in RESTORE, at 12 months, 4.2% (95% CI, -7.7 to 16.1) more in the laser plus 0.5-mg group and 0.9% (95% CI, -10.3 to 12.1) more in the 0.5-mg group vs the laser group reported driving. Although balanced at baseline across treatment groups for RESTORE and RIDE/RISE, the proportion of patients with best-corrected visual acuity typically required for an unrestricted license (20/40 or better in at least 1 eye) appeared greater at month 12 in the ranibizumab groups (77 of 80 [96.3%] for 0.5 mg + laser and 91 of 93 [97.8%] for 0.5 mg) vs laser (71 of 79 [89.9%]) in RESTORE, and at months 12 (112 of 123 [91.1%] and 136 of 137 [99.3%] in 0.3- and 0.5-mg groups, respectively) and 24 (113 of 123 [91.9%] and 135 of 137 [98.5%] in the 0.3- and 0.5-mg groups, respectively) vs sham (121 of 147 [82.3%] and 122 of 147 [83.0%]) in RIDE/RISE. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: These results suggest that 12 months after initiating ranibizumab for vision impairment from center-involved DME, patients not driving at initiation of treatment are more likely to report driving and have driving-eligible visual acuity of 20/40 or better in the better-seeing eye than those treated with sham or laser. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: RESTORE: NCT00687804; RIDE: NCT00473382; and RISE: NCT00473330.

Longitudinal Commercial Claims-Based Cost Analysis of Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Patterns.

BACKGROUND: Diabetic retinopathy is one of the most common complications of diabetes. The screening of patients with diabetes to detect retinopathy is recommended by several professional guidelines but is an underutilized service. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the relationship between the frequency of retinopathy screening and the cost of care in adult patients with diabetes. METHODS: Truven Health MarketScan commercial databases (2000-2013) were used to identify the diabetic population aged 18 to 64 years for the performance of a 2001-2013 annual trend analysis of patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes and a 10-year longitudinal analysis of patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes. In the trend analysis, the prevalence of diabetes, screening rate, and allowed cost per member per month (PMPM) were calculated. In the longitudinal analysis, data from 4 index years (2001-2004) of patients newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes were combined, and the costs were adjusted to be comparable to the 2004 index year cohort, using the annual diabetes population cost trends calculated in the trend analysis. The longitudinal population was segmented into the number of years of diabetic retinopathy screening (ie, 0, 1-4, 5-7, and 8-10), and the relationship between the years of screening and the PMPM allowed costs was analyzed. The difference in mean incremental cost between years 1 and 10 in each of the 4 cohorts was compared after adjusting for explanatory variables. RESULTS: In the trend analysis, between 2001 and 2013, the prevalence of diabetes increased from 3.93% to 5.08%, retinal screening increased from 26.27% to 29.58%, and the average total unadjusted allowed cost of care for each patient with diabetes increased from $822 to $1395 PMPM. In the longitudinal analysis, the difference between the screening cohorts' mean incremental cost increase was $185 between the 0- and 1-4-year cohorts (P <.003) and $202 between the 0- and 5-7-year cohorts (P <.023). The cost differences between the other cohorts, including $217 between the 0- and 8-10-year cohorts (P <.066), were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our analysis, the annual retinopathy screening rate for patients with diabetes has remained low since 2001, and has been well below the guideline-recommended screening levels. For patients with type 2 diabetes, the mean increase in healthcare expenditures over a 10-year period after diagnosis is not statistically different among those with various retinopathy screening rates, although the increase in healthcare spending is lower for patients with diabetes who were not screened for retinopathy compared with patients who did get screened.

United States comparative costs and absenteeism of diabetic ophthalmic conditions.

OBJECTIVE: This retrospective cohort study examined the impact of diabetic macular edema (DME), diabetic retinopathy (DR), or diabetes on annual health benefit costs and absenteeism in US employees. METHODS: Claims data from 2001 to 2012 was extracted from the Human Capital Management Services Group Research Reference Database on annual direct/indirect health benefit costs and absences for employees aged ≥ 18 years. Employees with DME, DR, or diabetes were identified by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes. Employees were divided into two groups, drivers or nondrivers, and examined in separate analyses. For drivers and nondrivers, the DME, DR, and diabetes cohorts were compared with their respective control groups (without diabetes). Two-part regression models controlled for demographics and job-related characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 39,702 driver and 426,549 nondriver employees were identified as having ≥ 1 year's continuous health plan enrollment. Direct medical costs for drivers with DME, DR, or diabetes were $6470, $8021, and $5102, respectively (>2.8 times higher and statistically significant compared with driver controls). Nondrivers with DME and DR incurred significantly higher sick leave and short-term disability costs compared with the nondrivers with diabetes and nondriver controls. In drivers with DME, the majority of days of absence were for short- and long-term disability (12.41 and 11.43 days, respectively). In drivers with DR, the majority of days of absence were for short-term disability (10.70 days). In nondrivers with DME and nondrivers with DR, the majority of days of absence were for sick leave (5.74 and 4.93 days, respectively) and short-term disability (5.08 and 4.93 days, respectively). CONCLUSION: DME and DR are associated with substantial direct medical cost and absenteeism in this real-world sample of medically insured employees. This research highlights the negative impact of DME and DR on annual costs and absenteeism and may assist employers in assessing the impact of these conditions on employees.

Patients' willingness to trade off between the duration and frequency of rheumatoid arthritis treatments.

OBJECTIVE: Biologic treatments for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) vary widely in both the time required to administer treatment and treatment frequency. This study aimed to quantify the rate at which RA patients are willing to trade off between the time required to administer treatment (duration) and treatment frequency. METHODS: Respondents with a self-reported physician diagnosis of moderate to severe RA completed an online discrete choice experiment survey (also known as conjoint analysis). Respondents were presented with a series of treatment-choice questions. Each hypothetical treatment included 6 attributes: response rate, mode of administration, treatment duration, treatment frequency, and the risks of immediate mild and serious treatment reactions. Preference weights, also called marginal utilities or relative importances, were estimated using mixed-logit methods and then used to calculate the marginal rates of substitution between attributes, including treatment duration and treatment frequency. RESULTS: Among the 901 respondents, 505 were in the RA Information, Service, and Education group (www.risesupport.com) and 396 were members of an online panel. The marginal utility of changes in treatment features was largest for a 1-hour change in treatment duration, while a 1-unit change in the annual frequency of treatment was the second least important change. The marginal utility of changes in annual treatment frequency depends on the treatment duration and vice versa. CONCLUSION: Respondents would accept treatments with lower efficacy and greater risk to achieve lower duration and frequency. Previous studies have linked patient preferences to treatment adherence, suggesting that reductions in duration or frequency could improve adherence and health outcomes.

Underuse of the health care system by persons with diabetes mellitus and diabetic macular edema in the United States.

IMPORTANCE: Thickening of the center of the retina, diabetic macular edema (DME), is the most common cause of visual loss due to diabetes mellitus. Treatment of DME has improved dramatically, and the prompt diagnosis of DME and referral of these patients have become more critical. Nonetheless, awareness of and care for DME in the US population is uncharacterized. OBJECTIVE: To characterize eye care and awareness of eye disease among persons with DME in the general US population. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Cross-sectional analysis of data from participants in the 2005 to 2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 40 years or older with diabetes mellitus and fundus photographs. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Among persons with DME, (1) awareness that diabetes has affected their eyes; (2) report on the last time they visited a diabetes specialist; (3) report on their last eye examination with pupil dilation; and (4) prevalence of visual impairment. RESULTS: In 2010, only 44.7% (95% CI, 27.0%-62.4%) of US adults 40 years or older with DME reported being told by a physician that diabetes had affected their eyes or that they had retinopathy; 46.7% (95% CI, 27.5%-66.0%), that they had visited a diabetes nurse educator, dietician, or nutritionist for their diabetes mellitus more than 1 year ago or never; and 59.7% (95% CI, 43.5%-75.9%), that they had received an eye examination with pupil dilation in the last year. Among persons with DME, 28.7% (95% CI, 12.7%-44.7%) were visually impaired (defined as visual acuity worse than 20/40 in the eye with DME) based on visual acuity at the initial examination and 16.0% (95% CI, 2.5%-29.4%) based on best-corrected visual acuity. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Many persons with diabetes mellitus in the United States are not getting care that can prevent visual impairment and blindness. Strategies to increase awareness are warranted, especially given the recent availability of improved therapies for DME.

Prevalence of and risk factors for diabetic macular edema in the United States.

IMPORTANCE: Diabetic macular edema (DME) is a leading cause of vision loss in persons with diabetes mellitus. Although there are national estimates for the prevalence of diabetic retinopathy and its risk factors among persons with diabetes, to our knowledge, no comparable estimates are available for DME specifically. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the prevalence of DME in the US population and to identify associated risk factors. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A cross-sectional analysis of 1038 participants aged 40 years or older with diabetes and valid fundus photographs in the 2005 to 2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The overall prevalence of DME and its prevalence according to age, race/ethnicity, and sex. RESULTS: Of the 1038 persons with diabetes analyzed for this study, 55 had DME, for an overall weighted prevalence of 3.8% (95% CI, 2.7%-4.9%) or approximately 746, 000 persons in the US 2010 population aged 40 years or older. We identified no differences in the prevalence of DME by age or sex. Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that the odds of having DME were higher for non-Hispanic blacks than for non-Hispanic whites (odds ratio [OR], 2.64; 95% CI, 1.19-5.84; P = .02). Elevated levels of glycosylated hemoglobin A1c (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.26-1.71 for each 1%; P < .001) and longer duration of diabetes (OR, 8.51; 95% CI, 3.70-19.54 for ≥ 10 vs <10 years; P < .001) were also associated with DME prevalence. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: These results suggest a greater burden of DME among non-Hispanic blacks, individuals with high levels of hemoglobin A1c, and those with longer duration of diabetes. Given recent treatment advances in reducing vision loss and preserving vision in persons with DME, it is imperative that all persons with diabetes receive early screening; this recommendation is even more important for those at higher risk for DME.

Risk of infections in rheumatoid arthritis patients switching from anti-TNF agents to rituximab, abatacept, or another anti-TNF agent, a retrospective administrative claims analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study compared the incidence and hazard of ICD-9-CM-coded infections and severe infections in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients treated with subsequent-line (SL) BIOs (BIO) after switching from first-line (FL) anti-TNF therapy (anti-TNF). METHODS: Retrospective analysis of a large U.S. claims database. RA patients initiating an FL anti-TNF between 1/1/2004 and 3/31/2010 were identified and followed forward in time to capture all SL BIO episodes through 3/31/2010. SL BIO episodes were classified into: abatacept, adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, or rituximab. Multivariate mixed-effects survival models compared the hazard of infections and severe infections across the SL BIO episodes with adjustment for demographic and clinical confounders. RESULTS: In total, 4332 SL BIO episodes were identified: mean age 55 years; 80% female. In adjusted analyses: when compared to rituximab, the hazard of all infections was significantly higher for adalimumab (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.31, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.09-1.55), etanercept (HR = 1.44, 95% CI = 1.20-1.72), and infliximab (HR = 1.30, 95% CI = 1.07-1.57), and insignificantly different for abatacept (HR = 1.18, 95% CI = 0.98-1.41); when compared to rituximab, the hazard of severe infection was significantly higher for infliximab (HR = 1.62, 95% CI = 1.03-2.55), and insignificantly different for abatacept (HR = 1.21, 95% CI = 0.78-1.88), adalimumab (HR = 1.10, 95% CI = 0.72-1.68), and etanercept (HR = 1.27, 95% CI = 0.83-1.95). CONCLUSIONS: In RA patients treated with SL BIO, a 30-44% higher hazard of all infection was observed in anti-TNFs versus rituximab with a 62% higher hazard of severe infection observed in infliximab versus rituximab. This study used a non-randomized, observational design and is therefore subject to confounding from unmeasured factors that influence both treatment choice and infection risk.

Composite Indices Using 3 or 4 Components of the Core Data Set Have Similar Predictive Ability to Measure Disease Activity in RA: Evidence from the DANCER and REFLEX Studies.

Background. Understanding how disease-assessment indices perform in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) clinical trials can inform their use in routine practice. The study objective was to assess the capacity of combinations of RA Core Data Set measures to distinguish rituximab from control treatment. Methods. Post hoc analysis of two randomised clinical trials was used. Composite Efficacy Indices were derived by combining three or four RA Core Data Set measures from three possible sources: physician, patient, and laboratory. Results. All 105 Composite Efficacy Indices evaluated significantly distinguished rituximab from control treatment (P < 10(-7)). Generally, indices containing measures from three different sources had a greater capacity to distinguish rituximab from control treatment than indices containing three measures from one source. Composite Efficacy Indices performed as well as validated indices such as DAS28, RAPID3, and CDAI. Conclusions. All indices composed of three or four RA Core Data Set measures have a similar capacity to detect treatment differences. These results suggest that the precise measurement used is less important than whether any measurement is performed, although selection should be consistent for each patient. Therefore, the choice of assessment tool should not be limited to a prescribed list and should instead be left to the clinician's discretion.

Retrospective analysis of first-line anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment patterns in wet age-related macular degeneration.

INTRODUCTION: This study compared the number of, and expenditures on, first-line intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) injections between patients who were treated with aflibercept or ranibizumab for wet age-related macular degeneration (AMD). METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study based on U.S. administrative claims data. Selected patients had initiated first-line intravitreal anti-VEGF treatment with ranibizumab or aflibercept (index date) between November 18, 2011 and April 30, 2013, were aged ≥ 18 years on the index date, had 12 months of continuous insurance enrollment prior to the index date (baseline period), were diagnosed with wet AMD during the baseline period or on the index date, and had at least 6 or 12 months of follow-up enrollment after the index date without switching to a different anti-VEGF agent (follow-up periods). Outcomes measured within the 6 and 12 month follow-up periods included the number of, and healthcare expenditures on, intravitreal anti-VEGF injections. Multivariable regressions compared the outcomes between aflibercept and ranibizumab. RESULTS: The 6 months analyses included 319 aflibercept patients and 1,054 ranibizumab patients (12 month analyses: 57 and 374, respectively). Over the first 6 months after the index date, neither the number of injections (aflibercept mean = 3.8 ± 1.6; ranibizumab mean = 3.9 ± 1.9) nor the expenditures on injections (aflibercept mean = $7,468 ± $4,211; ranibizumab mean = $7,816 ± $4,834) differed significantly between aflibercept patients and ranibizumab patients (in multivariable regression treating ranibizumab as reference: incidence rate ratio = 0.97, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.91-1.03, P = 0.277; cost ratio = 0.96, 95% CI 0.89-1.04, P = 0.338). Differences were also insignificant in the 12 month analyses. The overall mean days between injections differed by only 1.8 (95% CI 1.3-2.3) days between the aflibercept patients and ranibizumab patients (42.4 and 40.6, respectively). CONCLUSION: Aflibercept and ranibizumab were used at a similar frequency resulting in similar intravitreal anti-VEGF injection healthcare expenditures among wet AMD patients initiating first-line intravitreal anti-VEGF treatment.

How to aggregate health? Separability and the effect of framing.

BACKGROUND: Unweighted summation or quality-adjusted life year (QALY) utilitarianism is the most common way to aggregate health benefits in a cost-effectiveness analysis. A key qualitative principle underlying QALY utilitarianism is separability: those individuals unaffected by a policy choice should not influence the policy choice. Separability also underlies several of the alternatives for QALY utilitarianism that have been proposed. OBJECTIVES: To test separability and to test whether the support for separability is affected by the framing of the choice questions. METHODS: In 2 experiments, 345 student subjects (162 in the first experiment, and 183 in the second experiment) were asked to select 1 of 2 possible treatments, with each treatment resulting in a different distribution of health across individuals. The only aspect that varied across choice questions was the state of the patients whose health was unaffected by the act of choosing a policy. In each experiment, we used 2 frames. In the implicit frame, it was implied but not plainly expressed what outcomes the treatments had in common. In the explicit frame, common outcomes of the 2 treatments were directly stated. The 2 experiments differed in the way the explicit frame was presented (verbal v. numerical). RESULTS: The support for separability was significantly greater in the explicit frame. The proportion of violations in the implicit frame was 44% in Experiment 1 and 31% in Experiment 2, while in the explicit frame, the proportion of violations was 28% in Experiment 1 and 8% in Experiment 2. CONCLUSIONS: Framing affected the support for separability, raising issues as to whether it is possible to achieve a canonical representation of social choices.