Análisis coste-utilidad del modelo de unidad de terapia intravítrea (UTI) frente a la administración tradicional de terapia intravítrea / Cost-utility model of new intravítreous units vs. current patient journey model in Spain

Objetivo Comparar la efectividad y los costes de la implantación del Modelo de Unidad de Terapia Intravítrea (UTI), avalado por la Sociedad Española de Retina y Vítreo (SERV), Sociedad Española de Calidad Asistencial (SECA), Sociedad Española de Oftalmología (SEO) y Sociedad Española de Directivos Sanitarios (SEDISA) vs. el procedimiento habitual. Método Modelo de decisión analítico que compara una organización asistencial tipo UTI con cuatro escenarios de práctica habitual en España, en cuanto al resultado en la calidad de vida por pérdida de agudeza visual y la utilización de recursos. Se estimó la probabilidad, el coste y los años de vida ajustados por calidad (AVAC) para cada escenario planteado. Se realizó un análisis de sensibilidad univariante para cada uno de los parámetros empleados. Resultado Se observó que la implantación del modelo UTI mejora la calidad de vida de los pacientes y presenta un menor coste frente a la práctica habitual. Se produjo ahorro de costes y ganancia de AVAC. El análisis de sensibilidad mostró que el resultado no cambiaría de signo con la modificación de ninguna variable de partida. Conclusiones En las patologías oculares con indicación de tratamiento intravítreo, cualquier reducción en el tiempo que transcurre desde la sospecha diagnóstica hasta la primera inyección intravítrea disminuye la pérdida de agudeza visual. Así, actuar para acortar los tiempos sospecha-aguja es clave para mantener la visión funcional de los pacientes. La mejora de la eficiencia de los servicios de oftalmología que se organizan siguiendo el modelo UTI puede generar ahorros que varían entre los 175 € y 85 € por paciente atendido y año (AU)

Aim To compare the effectiveness and costs of the implementation of the intravitreal therapy unit model, endorsed by the SERV, SECA, SEO and SEDISA, compared to the usual procedure. Method Analytical decision model that compares an UTI-type healthcare organization with four usual practice scenarios in Spain, in terms of quality-of-life results due to loss of visual acuity and the use of resources. The probability, cost, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated for each scenario proposed. A univariate sensitivity analysis was performed for each of the parameters used in the model. Result The model showed that from any of the initial scenarios of the usual practice, transitioning to the UTI-type implementation improves the quality of life of patients and requires lower cost. UTI-type is dominant respect usual practice. The sensitivity analysis showed that the results would not change sign with the variation of any starting variable. Conclusions Shorten suspicion-needle times is key to maintaining functional vision in patients requiring intravitreal treatment. The UTI-type model seeks the efficiency of ophthalmology services and can produce savings that vary between €175 and €85 per patient attended per year (AU)

Cost-utility model of new intravitreous units vs. current patient journey model in Spain.

AIM: To compare the effectiveness and costs of the implementation of the Intravitreal Therapy Unit Model, endorsed by the SERV, SECA, SEO and SEDISA, compared to the usual procedure. METHOD: Analytical decision model that compares an UTI-type healthcare organization with 4 usual practice scenarios in Spain, in terms of quality-of-life results due to loss of visual acuity and the use of resources. The probability, cost, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated for each scenario proposed. A univariate sensitivity analysis was performed for each of the parameters used in the model. RESULT: The model showed that from any of the initial scenarios of the usual practice, transitioning to the UTI-type implementation improves the quality of life of patients and requires lower cost. UTI-type is dominant respect usual practice. The sensitivity analysis showed that the results would not change sign with the variation of any starting variable. CONCLUSIONS: Shorten suspicion-needle times is key to maintaining functional vision in patients requiring intravitreal treatment. The UTI-type model seeks the efficiency of ophthalmology services and can produce savings that vary between Є175 and Є85 per patient attended per year.

Análisis de minimización de costes de brolucizumab en el tratamiento de la degeneración macular asociada a la edad neovascular / Cost minimization analysis of brolucizumab in the treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration

Introducción Brolucizumab es un nuevo fármaco antifactor de crecimiento endotelial vascular (anti-VEGF) administrado con una pauta fija de ocho o 12 semanas que en los estudios HAWK y HARRIER demostró ser no inferior a aflibercept con respecto a la mejor agudeza visual corregida, bajo una menor carga de administración. El objetivo del análisis fue comparar los costes directos sanitarios de ambos anti-VEGF como tratamiento en pacientes con degeneración macular asociada a la edad neovascular. Material y métodos Se realizó un análisis de minimización de costes bajo un horizonte temporal de 25 años y considerando el coste farmacológico, de administración, de pruebas de seguimiento y del manejo de eventos adversos. El uso de recursos fue obtenido de literatura relacionada y validada por expertos clínicos. Se llevaron a cabo diversos análisis de escenarios para comprobar la robustez de los resultados. Resultados Brolucizumab resultó con un menor coste por paciente en comparación con aflibercept, considerando el número de inyecciones derivadas de los estudios HAWK y HARRIER. Este resultado se mantuvo en los diferentes escenarios analizados, excepto frente al número de inyecciones de la pauta flexible de aflibercept del estudio ARIES, ya que la menor discontinuación de tratamiento con brolucizumab conlleva mantener el tratamiento de más pacientes. Al considerar la misma discontinuación, brolucizumab mantuvo los resultados observados en el caso base del análisis. Conclusiones El presente estudio muestra como la pauta de administración fija de brolucizumab puede ayudar a disminuir la carga asistencial para los centros sanitarios y los pacientes (AU)

Introduction Brolucizumab is a novel anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) drug administered in a fixed regimen of 8 or 12 weeks which, in the HAWK and HARRIER studies, was shown not to be inferior to aflibercept with respect to the best corrected visual acuity, with a less burdensome treatment regimen. The aim of the analysis was to compare the direct healthcare costs of both anti-VEGF as a treatment in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration.Material and methods A cost minimization analysis was performed under a 25-year time horizon and considering the drug costs, administration, follow-up tests, and management of adverse events. Resource use was obtained from the related literature and validated by clinical experts. Various scenario analysis were carried out to check the robustness of the results. Results Brolucizumab resulted in a lower cost per patient compared with aflibercept, considering the number of injections derived from the HAWK and HARRIER studies. This result was maintained in the different scenarios analysed, except for the number of injections of the flexible aflibercept regimen of the ARIES study, since the lower discontinuation of treatment with brolucizumab implies maintaining the treatment of more patients. Considering the same discontinuation, brolucizumab maintained the results observed in the base case of the analysis. Conclusions This study shows how the fixed administration regimen of brolucizumab can help reduce both healthcare and patients’ burden (AU)

Cost minimization analysis of brolucizumab in the treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration.

INTRODUCTION: Brolucizumab is a novel anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) drug administered in a fixed regimen of 8 or 12 weeks which, in the HAWK and HARRIER studies, was shown not to be inferior to aflibercept with respect to the best corrected visual acuity, with a less burdensome treatment regimen. The aim of the analysis was to compare the direct healthcare costs of both anti-VEGF as a treatment in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A cost minimization analysis was performed under a 25-year time horizon and considering the drug costs, administration, follow-up tests, and management of adverse events. Resource use was obtained from the related literature and validated by clinical experts. Various scenario analysis were carried out to check the robustness of the results. RESULTS: Brolucizumab resulted in a lower cost per patient compared with aflibercept, considering the number of injections derived from the HAWK and HARRIER studies. This result was maintained in the different scenarios analysed, except for the number of injections of the flexible aflibercept regimen of the ARIES study, since the lower discontinuation of treatment with brolucizumab implies maintaining the treatment of more patients. Considering the same discontinuation, brolucizumab maintained the results observed in the base case of the analysis. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows how the fixed administration regimen of brolucizumab can help reduce both healthcare and patients' burden.