Fluocinolone Acetonide Intravitreal Implant for Treating Recurrent Non-infectious Uveitis: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited Alimera Sciences, the company manufacturing fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant (FAc) 0.19 mg (tradename ILUVIEN®), to submit evidence on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of FAc for treating recurrent non-infectious uveitis. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, in collaboration with Maastricht University Medical Centre + , was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper contains a summary of the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence submitted by the company, the ERG's critique on the submitted evidence, and the guidance issued by the NICE Appraisal Committee (AC). The company submission (CS) was mainly informed by the PSV-FAI-001 trial in which FAc was compared with (limited) current practice [(L)CP], which was not considered to be representative of UK clinical practice by the ERG. There was no comparison of FAc to any treatment listed in the final scope, and especially to the dexamethasone intravitreal implant (dexamethasone), which was considered to be a relevant comparator by the AC. The primary outcome of the PSV-FAI-001 was recurrence of uveitis in the treated eye. Most of the events for the primary outcome were imputed during the PSV-FAI-001 trial, which probably led to an overestimation of the number of recurrences of disease, and a biased estimate of the relative effectiveness of FAc versus (L)CP. Finally, the place of FAc in the treatment pathway was not clearly defined by the company. Substantial uncertainty surrounded the cost-effectiveness results due to the shortcomings of the clinical evidence. Additionally, the quality of life of patients was not measured during the PSV-FAI-001 trial and long-term effectiveness data of FAc were lacking. The ERG adjusted several issues identified in the CS and added dexamethasone as a comparator in the decision analytic model. The ERG presented multiple analyses as base-cases because several elements of the assessment remained uncertain. The fully incremental ERG results ranged from dexamethasone (extendedly) dominating FAc (when assuming a hazard ratio of 1 or 0.7 for dexamethasone versus FAc) to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £30,153 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for FAc versus (L)CP [when assuming a hazard ratio of 0.456 for dexamethasone versus (L)CP]. The ICER of FAc versus (L)CP ranged from £12,325 to £30,153 per QALY gained. After a second AC meeting where alternative company scenarios comparing FAc with dexamethasone were considered by the AC, the AC concluded that "the results of the company's analyses ranged from the fluocinolone acetonide implant being dominant (that is, it was more effective and costs less), to an ICER of £29,461 per QALY gained, and most of the ICERs were below £20,000 per QALY gained". Therefore, the AC recommended FAc as a cost-effective use of National Health Service (NHS) resources for treating recurrent non-infectious uveitis affecting the posterior segment of the eye in the final TA590 guidance (published July 2019).

Cost-effectiveness of fluocinolone acetonide implant (ILUVIEN®) in UK patients with chronic diabetic macular oedema considered insufficiently responsive to available therapies.

BACKGROUND: Diabetic macular oedema (DMO) may lead to visual loss and blindness. Several pharmacological treatments are available on the National Health Service (NHS) to United Kingdom patients affected by this condition, including intravitreal vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors (anti-VEGFs) and two types of intravitreal steroid implants, releasing dexamethasone or fluocinolone acetonide (FAc). This study aimed to assess the value for money (cost-effectiveness) of the FAc 0.2 µg/day implant (ILUVIEN®) in patients with chronic DMO considered insufficiently responsive to other therapies. METHODS: We developed a Markov model with a 15-year time horizon to estimate the impact of changes in best-corrected visual acuity in DMO patients on costs and quality-adjusted life years. The model considered both eyes, designated as the "study eye", defined at model entry as phakic with an ongoing cataract formation or pseudophakic, and the "fellow eye". The model compared the FAc 0.2 µg/day implant with a 700 µg dexamethasone implant (pseudophakic patients only) or with usual care, defined as a mixture of laser photocoagulation and anti-VEGFs (phakic and pseudophakic patients). Costs were estimated from the perspective of the NHS and Personal Social Services; full NHS prices were used for drugs. RESULTS: In patients who were pseudophakic at baseline, at 36 months, the FAc implant provided an additional gain of 4.01 and 3.64 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters compared with usual care and the dexamethasone implant, respectively. Over the 15-year time horizon, this translated into 0.185 additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at an extra cost of £3066 compared with usual care, and 0.126 additional QALYs at an extra cost of £1777 compared with dexamethasone. Thus, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were £16,609 and £14,070 per QALY gained vs. usual care and dexamethasone, respectively. In patients who were phakic at baseline, the FAc 0.2 µg/day implant provided an additional gain of 2.96 ETDRS letters at 36 months compared with usual care, which, over 15 years, corresponded to 0.11 additional QALYs at an extra cost of £3170, resulting in an ICER of £28,751 per QALY gained. CONCLUSION: The FAc 0.2 µg/day implant provided good value for money compared with other established treatments, especially in pseudophakic patients.

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.

Health-economic evaluation of fluocinolone acetonide 190 µg implant in people with diabetic macular edema.

OBJECTIVES: To assess healthcare resource use and costs of treating people with clinically significant diabetic macular edema (DME) with fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) 190 µg intravitreal implant in routine clinical practice. METHODS: The retrospective Iluvien Clinical Evidence (ICE-UK) study collected data on people prescribed the FAc implant in any one of 13 ophthalmology centers between April 1, 2013 and April 15, 2015. Data were collected for 12 months before and after implantation. Standard UK costs were attributed to healthcare resource use. RESULTS: In total, 208 people contributing 233 FAc-treated eyes were selected. Mean age was 68.1 years and 62% were male. The mean (standard deviation, SD) number of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) injections per FAc treated eye in the 12 months prior to implant was 2.8 (2.5), decreasing to 0.6 (1.4) for the same period after implant (p < .001). The corresponding figures for other steroid injections (dexamethasone and triamcinolone) were 0.14 (0.4) before and 0.08 (0.4) after implant (p = .016). There was no statistically significant difference in the number of laser therapies required in the 12 months before and after FAc implant (mean = 0.12 vs 0.11, respectively; p = .626). Overall, mean (SD) healthcare costs were £2,691 (£1,850) before and £1,239 (£1,203) after FAc implant (p < .001). The unit drug and administration cost per FAc implant was £5,680. CONCLUSIONS: Excluding the cost of the FAc implant, healthcare costs were significantly reduced in the 12 months post-implant. FAc implant has a duration of 3 years. This needs to be considered when interpreting the cost associated with the FAc implant.

Economic evaluation of a fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant for patients with DME based on the FAME study.

INTRODUCTION: Diabetic macular edema (DME) is the most common cause of visual impairment in patients with diabetes. DME is a complex disease characterized by the deposition of fluid and proteins within the intraretinal layers, and the disease is recognized as being mediated by multiple cytokines, requiring a multifactorial therapeutic approach. Iluvien (fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant) 0.19 mg contains a corticosteroid, fluocinolone acetonide [FAc], and is indicated for the treatment of DME in patients who have been previously treated with a course of corticosteroids and did not have a clinically significant rise in intraocular pressure. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed in Microsoft Excel with a 15-year time horizon comparing the healthcare and productivity costs with health outcomes from treatment. The model was structured around 13 best corrected visual acuity states using Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study scores. Observations and extrapolations from the Fluocinolone Acetonide for Diabetic Macular Edema study were applied to determine observed and ongoing treatment effects. RESULTS: The expected incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for treatment with an FAc implant is $38,763, assuming 40% of patients are treated unilaterally; when 100% of patients receive unilateral treatment with an FAc implant, it is cost-saving. CONCLUSION: Administering an FAc implant to patients with DME previously treated with a corticosteroid is a cost-effective treatment option for ophthalmologists.

Cost-effectiveness of fluocinolone acetonide implant versus systemic therapy for noninfectious intermediate, posterior, and panuveitis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the 3-year incremental cost-effectiveness of fluocinolone acetonide implant versus systemic therapy for the treatment of noninfectious intermediate, posterior, and panuveitis. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled, clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with active or recently active intermediate, posterior, or panuveitis enrolled in the Multicenter Uveitis Steroid Treatment Trial. METHODS: Data on cost and health utility during 3 years after randomization were evaluated at 6-month intervals. Analyses were stratified by disease laterality at randomization (31 unilateral vs 224 bilateral) because of the large upfront cost of the implant. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) over 3 years: the ratio of the difference in cost (in United States dollars) to the difference in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Costs of medications, surgeries, hospitalizations, and regular procedures (e.g., laboratory monitoring for systemic therapy) were included. We computed QALYs as a weighted average of EQ-5D scores over 3 years of follow-up. RESULTS: The ICER at 3 years was $297,800/QALY for bilateral disease, driven by the high cost of implant therapy (difference implant - systemic [Δ]: $16,900; P < 0.001) and the modest gains in QALYs (Δ = 0.057; P = 0.22). The probability of the ICER being cost-effective at thresholds of $50,000/QALY and $100,000/QALY was 0.003 and 0.04, respectively. The ICER for unilateral disease was more favorable, namely, $41,200/QALY at 3 years, because of a smaller difference in cost between the 2 therapies (Δ = $5300; P = 0.44) and a larger benefit in QALYs with the implant (Δ = 0.130; P = 0.12). The probability of the ICER being cost-effective at thresholds of $50,000/QALY and $100,000/QALY was 0.53 and 0.74, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Fluocinolone acetonide implant therapy was reasonably cost-effective compared with systemic therapy for individuals with unilateral intermediate, posterior, or panuveitis but not for those with bilateral disease. These results do not apply to the use of implant therapy when systemic therapy has failed or is contraindicated. Should the duration of implant effect prove to be substantially >3 years or should large changes in therapy pricing occur, the cost-effectiveness of implant versus systemic therapy would need to be reevaluated.

Cost-effectiveness of a hydroquinone/tretinoin/fluocinolone acetonide cream combination in treating melasma in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Melasma, a disorder of facial hyperpigmentation, presents a treatment obstacle to many physicians. Combination therapy with hydroquinone, tretinoin, and fluocinolone acetonide has proven effective, but it is generally more expensive than other treatments. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of daily triple combination therapy (TCT) compared with daily use of each possible pair of agents (dyads) and twice daily use of hydroquinone (HQ) alone from a payer's perspective. METHODS: Efficacy data were obtained from two clinical trials with the primary endpoint being complete clearance at 8 weeks. For all treatments, total cost per successful treatment was calculated. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated for each dyad and for HQ monotherapy in comparison with TCT. Sensitivity analyses for efficacy and number of office visits were similarly performed. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: TCT consistently had the lowest cost per primary success in all the analyses performed. Furthermore, ICERs were low, indicating that TCT's superior efficacy is attained at marginal cost increases. Our results indicate that TCT is the most cost-effective treatment when compared with any of its dyads or with hydroquinone alone.

Cost-effectiveness of a fixed combination of hydroquinone/tretinoin/fluocinolone cream compared with hydroquinone alone in the treatment of melasma.

BACKGROUND: A once-daily fixed combination of hydroquinone, tretinoin, and fluocinolone acetonide (Tri-luma) is a newly available treatment for melasma. OBJECTIVE: To assess cost-effectiveness of triple combination therapy (TCT) applied once daily and hydroquinone alone applied twice daily in the U.S., Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Colombia from a payer's perspective. METHODS: Clinical data and utilization of key health resources (medication only) were assessed within an 8-week clinical trial conducted in Brazil. Total cost per primary success (complete clearing) was used to compare each treatment with not treating and incremental cost effectiveness ratios were used to compare between treatments. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: TCT had a 30% better rate of complete clearing than hydroquinone with a lower cost in the U.S. and an incremental cost in other countries. In every country, cost per primary success was lower for TCT than for hydroquinone. Results were robust to varying assumptions of success rates and quantity used.

Cost analysis of the use of inhaled corticosteroids in the treatment of asthma: a 1-year follow-up.

A retrospective cohort using pharmacy and medical claims was analysed to determine whether the differences in efficacy of various inhaled corticosteroids demonstrated in clinical trials lead to differences in costs of care observed in clinical practice. Subjects that had an ICD-9 (493.XX) code for asthma and a new pharmacy claim for inhaled fluticasone propionate 44 mcg (FP), beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP), triamcinolone acetonide (TAA), budesonide (BUD) or flunisolide (FLU) were identified and followed for 12 months. Annual asthma care charges (pharmacy and medical) over the 12-month observation period were significantly (P < 0.03) higher in patients treated with BDPTAA, BUD and FLU compared to FP, 24%, 27%, 34% and 45% respectively In addition, patients treated with BDPTAA, and FLU were associated with significantly (P < 0.005) higher total healthcare (asthma + non-asthma) charges compared to patients on FP, 53%, 46% and 39% respectively Asthma care and total healthcare charges remained lower for FP after including FP110 mcg and excluding patients who were extreme cost outliers (+/- 2 SD from the mean) in a univariate sensitivity analysis. This analysis supports recent randomized control trials that FP offers a superior efficacy profile at lower asthma care as well as total healthcare charges compared to other inhaled corticosteroids.

Cost effectiveness of fluticasone propionate and flunisolide in the treatment of corticosteroid-naive patients with moderate asthma.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the cost effectiveness of 2 inhaled corticosteroids, fluticasone propionate and flunisolide, in the management of asthma from a third-party payer perspective in Germany (German Sickness Fund). DESIGN AND SETTING: Direct treatment costs were retrospectively applied to 2 prospective randomised parallel group clinical trials conducted in Germany comparing fluticasone propionate and flunisolide: one 6-week open-label study (n = 332) and one 8-week double-blind study (n = 308) in corticosteroid-naive patients with asthma of moderate severity aged between 18 and 70 years. All costs were adjusted to 1997 Deutschmarks. Efficacy parameters included changes in morning and evening peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) measurements, the number of successfully treated patients (defined as those with a PEFR improvement of > or = 10%) and proportion of symptom-free days. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS: The fluticasone propionate groups had higher respective proportions of successfully treated patients and symptom-free days than the flunisolide groups in both the open-label (56.8 vs 39.6% and 36.4 vs 28.5%) and double-blind (55.3 vs 44.5% and 35.1 vs 31.1%) studies. Improvements in both morning and evening PEFR measurements were also significantly (p < 0.01) greater with fluticasone propionate than with flunisolide. Although average daily treatment costs were slightly higher in the fluticasone propionate groups than in the flunisolide groups, all cost-effectiveness ratios (daily cost per successfully treated patient and daily cost per symptom-free day) favoured fluticasone propionate. Sensitivity analysis showed that these results were robust over a wide range of assumptions. CONCLUSION: In these patients, management with fluticasone propionate was more cost effective than with flunisolide in the German healthcare setting.

Asthma treatment costs using inhaled corticosteroids.

Asthma is a chronic inflammatory disorder of the airways that affects 10 to 17.5 million people and leads to more than $5 billion in treatment costs in the Unites States annually. This retrospective study is an initial step in understanding the beneficial economic outcomes of inhaled corticosteroid therapy by determining whether differences exist in healthcare utilization expenditures for three inhaled corticosteroids available for use in the United States: (1) beclomethasone dipropionate (Vanceril/Schering and Beclovent/Allan & Hanburys); (2) flunisolide (Aerobid/Forest); and (3) and triamcinolone acetonide (Azmacort/Rhône-Poulenc Rorer). This study was based on an analysis of 4,441 patients with at least one pharmaceutical claim for one of the study drugs, using inpatient, outpatient, and prescription drug claims data obtained from The MEDSTAT Group's MarketScan database for calendar years 1990 through 1993. We tested a null hypothesis for no differences in total asthma treatment costs, when drugs were excluded, using multivariate linear regression modeling controlling for patient demographic and clinical characteristics that might affect the study outcome. We found that, after excluding study drug payments and controlling for other contributing factors, total asthma healthcare expenditures to triamcinolone acetonide (Azmacort) users were higher than those for beclomethasone dipropionate (Vanceril and Beclovent) and flunisolide (Aerobid) users. When study drug costs were included in the expenditure measure, both triamcinolone acetonide (Azmacort) and flunisolide (Aerobid) users had higher expenditures than did beclomethasone dipropionate (Vanceril and Beclovent) users. No significant differences in expenditures were detected between Vanceril and Beclovent patients, a finding consistent with the fact that these drugs are the same type of inhaled corticosteroid. Other factors contributing to differences in total asthma healthcare costs included patient age, patterns of switching among and continuing with study drugs, prestudy asthma utilization or drug proxy severity, and comorbidities of precipitating illnesses.