Intravitreal ranibizumab versus aflibercept versus bevacizumab for macular oedema due to central retinal vein occlusion: the LEAVO non-inferiority three-arm RCT.

BACKGROUND: Licensed ranibizumab (0.5 mg/0.05 ml Lucentis®; Novartis International AG, Basel, Switzerland) and aflibercept (2 mg/0.05 ml Eylea®; Bayer AG, Leverkusen, Germany) and unlicensed bevacizumab (1.25 mg/0.05 ml Avastin®; F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, Basel, Switzerland) are used to treat macula oedema due to central retinal vein occlusion, but their relative clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and impact on the UK NHS and Personal Social Services have never been directly compared over the typical disease treatment period. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor agents for the management of macula oedema due to central retinal vein occlusion. DESIGN: This was a three-arm, double-masked, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. SETTING: The trial was set in 44 UK NHS ophthalmology departments, between 2014 and 2018. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 463 patients with visual impairment due to macula oedema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion were included in the trial. INTERVENTIONS: The participants were treated with repeated intravitreal injections of ranibizumab (n = 155), aflibercept (n = 154) or bevacizumab (n = 154). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was an increase in the best corrected visual acuity letter score from baseline to 100 weeks in the trial eye. The null hypothesis that aflibercept and bevacizumab are each inferior to ranibizumab was tested with a non-inferiority margin of -5 visual acuity letters over 100 weeks. Secondary outcomes included additional visual acuity, and imaging outcomes, Visual Function Questionnaire-25, EuroQol-5 Dimensions with and without a vision bolt-on, and drug side effects. Cost-effectiveness was estimated using treatment costs and Visual Function Questionnaire-Utility Index to measure quality-adjusted life-years. RESULTS: The adjusted mean changes at 100 weeks in the best corrected visual acuity letter scores were as follows - ranibizumab, 12.5 letters (standard deviation 21.1 letters); aflibercept, 15.1 letters (standard deviation 18.7 letters); and bevacizumab, 9.8 letters (standard deviation 21.4 letters). Aflibercept was non-inferior to ranibizumab in the intention-to-treat population (adjusted mean best corrected visual acuity difference 2.23 letters, 95% confidence interval -2.17 to 6.63 letters; p = 0.0006), but not superior. The study was unable to demonstrate that bevacizumab was non-inferior to ranibizumab in the intention-to-treat population (adjusted mean best corrected visual acuity difference -1.73 letters, 95% confidence interval -6.12 to 2.67 letters; p = 0.071). A post hoc analysis was unable to demonstrate that bevacizumab was non-inferior to aflibercept in the intention-to-treat population (adjusted mean best corrected visual acuity difference was -3.96 letters, 95% confidence interval -8.34 to 0.42 letters; p = 0.32). All per-protocol population results were the same. Fewer injections were required with aflibercept (10.0) than with ranibizumab (11.8) (difference in means -1.8, 95% confidence interval -2.9 to -0.8). A post hoc analysis showed that more bevacizumab than aflibercept injections were required (difference in means 1.6, 95% confidence interval 0.5 to 2.7). There were no new safety concerns. The model- and trial-based cost-effectiveness analyses estimated that bevacizumab was the most cost-effective treatment at a threshold of £20,000-30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. LIMITATIONS: The comparison of aflibercept and bevacizumab was a post hoc analysis. CONCLUSION: The study showed aflibercept to be non-inferior to ranibizumab. However, the possibility that bevacizumab is worse than ranibizumab and aflibercept by 5 visual acuity letters cannot be ruled out. Bevacizumab is an economically attractive treatment alternative and would lead to substantial cost savings to the NHS and other health-care systems. However, uncertainty about its relative effectiveness should be discussed comprehensively with patients, their representatives and funders before treatment is considered. FUTURE WORK: To obtain extensive patient feedback and discuss with all stakeholders future bevacizumab NHS use. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN13623634. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 38. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The eye functions like a camera. The retina, at the back of the eye, is the camera film, and the centre, the macula, allows us to see fine details. Approximately 6500 people each year in England and Wales are affected by fluid leaking out of congested tiny blood vessels, causing macular swelling or oedema. The cause is blockage of the main vein that normally drains blood from the retina. Three drugs, injected into the eye in tiny amounts every 4­8 weeks, have been shown to improve the vision of people with this condition. Two drugs, ranibizumab (0.5 mg/0.05 ml Lucentis^®; Novartis International AG, Basel, Switzerland) and aflibercept (2 mg/0.05 ml Eylea^®; Bayer AG, Leverkusen, Germany), are licensed for UK use, but the third, bevacizumab (1.25 mg/0.05 ml Avastin^®; F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, Basel, Switzerland), is not, even though it is much cheaper and used extensively worldwide. To our knowledge, no trials have compared the three drugs over the typical 2-year treatment period. This multicentre, Phase III, double-masked, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial comparing the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of intravitreal therapy with ranibizumab (Lucentis) versus aflibercept (Eylea) versus bevacizumab (Avastin) for macular oedema due to central retinal Vein Occlusion (LEAVO) was designed to compare ranibizumab, aflibercept and bevacizumab in this type of macular oedema. The trial showed that all three drugs improved vision a lot, but bevacizumab improved vision to a slightly lesser degree than the other two drugs. All patients should be aware of these findings before considering their treatment options. A comparison of the costs and benefits of ranibizumab, aflibercept and bevacizumab, using data from the trial and other sources, found that all three led to similar improvements in quality of life. Because aflibercept and ranibizumab are so much more expensive, they may be poor value for money. If patients, their representatives and funders all agree, it may be possible to treat this type of macular oedema with bevacizumab, which is cheaper, keeping the other agents available if needed.

MRI in the diagnosis of fetal developmental brain abnormalities: the MERIDIAN diagnostic accuracy study.

BACKGROUND: Ultrasonography has been the mainstay of antenatal screening programmes in the UK for many years. Technical factors and physical limitations may result in suboptimal images that can lead to incorrect diagnoses and inaccurate counselling and prognostic information being given to parents. Previous studies suggest that the addition of in utero magnetic resonance imaging (iuMRI) may improve diagnostic accuracy for fetal brain abnormalities. These studies have limitations, including a lack of an outcome reference diagnosis (ORD), which means that improvements could not be assessed accurately. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic impact, acceptability and cost consequence of iuMRI among fetuses with a suspected fetal brain abnormality. DESIGN: A pragmatic, prospective, multicentre, cohort study with a health economics analysis and a sociological substudy. SETTING: Sixteen UK fetal medicine centres. PARTICIPANTS: Pregnant women aged ≥ 16 years carrying a fetus (at least 18 weeks' gestation) with a suspected brain abnormality detected on ultrasonography. INTERVENTIONS: Participants underwent iuMRI and the findings were reported to their referring fetal medicine clinician. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pregnancy outcome was followed up and an ORD from postnatal imaging or postmortem autopsy/imaging collected when available. Developmental data from the Bayley Scales of Infant Development and questionnaires were collected from the surviving infants aged 2-3 years. Data on the management of the pregnancy before and after the iuMRI were collected to inform the economic evaluation. Two surveys collected data on patient acceptability of iuMRI and qualitative interviews with participants and health professionals were undertaken. RESULTS: The primary analysis consisted of 570 fetuses. The absolute diagnostic accuracies of ultrasonography and iuMRI were 68% and 93%, respectively [a difference of 25%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 21% to 29%]. The difference between ultrasonography and iuMRI increased with gestational age. In the 18-23 weeks group, the figures were 70% for ultrasonography and 92% for iuMRI (difference of 23%, 95% CI 18% to 27%); in the ≥ 24 weeks group, the figures were 65% for ultrasonography and 94% for iuMRI (difference of 29%, 95% CI 23% to 36%). Patient acceptability was high, with at least 95% of respondents stating that they would have iuMRI again in a similar situation. Health professional interviews suggested that iuMRI was acceptable to clinicians and that iuMRI was useful as an adjunct to ultrasonography, but not as a replacement. Across a range of scenarios, iuMRI resulted in additional costs compared with ultrasonography alone. The additional cost was consistently < £600 per patient and the cost per management decision appropriately changed was always < £3000. There is potential for reporting bias from the referring clinicians on the diagnostic and prognostic outcomes. Lower than anticipated follow-up rates at 3 years of age were observed. CONCLUSIONS: iuMRI as an adjunct to ultrasonography significantly improves the diagnostic accuracy and confidence for the detection of fetal brain abnormalities. An evaluation of the use of iuMRI for cases of isolated microcephaly and the diagnosis of fetal spine abnormalities is recommended. Longer-term follow-up studies of children diagnosed with fetal brain abnormalities are required to fully assess the functional significance of the diagnoses. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN27626961. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 49. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Ultrasonography is routine in pregnancy to check that the baby's brain is developing as expected. However, no medical test is perfect and ultrasonography may miss some brain abnormalities, may get some brain abnormalities wrong or may diagnose an abnormality that is not really present. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may help clarify difficult cases during pregnancy. We wanted to find out if MRI was better than ultrasonography alone in making an accurate diagnosis. We recruited pregnant women whose ultrasound scan, performed by an expert, suggested that their baby had a brain abnormality, and referred them for a MRI scan. The results of the two tests were compared with each other and to the final outcome of the pregnancy. Our results showed that using MRI in addition to ultrasonography improved the accuracy of the diagnosis in about one in four pregnancies. It changed the prediction of how the baby would develop in at least one in five cases. In many cases, the pregnancy was managed differently because of the MRI result. The MRI was acceptable to women, with 95% saying that they would have MRI again in a similar situation. Neither MRI nor ultrasonography accurately identified children who went on to have delayed development at the age of 2­3 years, but MRI was better than ultrasonography at ruling out developmental problems at this age. The MRI cost more than ultrasonography alone; therefore, whether or not it is worthwhile depends on the value placed on the decisions that changed as a result of its use.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of condom distribution programmes for the prevention of sexually transmitted infections in England.

BACKGROUND: Prevention of sexually transmitted infection (STI) incidence in England is a high priority, particularly among young people, men who have sex with men (MSM) and black ethnic minorities. An economic evaluation of condom distribution programmes (CDPs) to reduce STI transmission is presented. METHODS: An economic model using a Bernoulli process estimated the number of people acquiring an STI as a function of its prevalence, transmission rate, condom use, condom failure rate and number of sexual contacts. Models were developed for young people (13-24 years), black ethnic minorities, MSM and the general English population. Effectiveness evidence came from a recent systematic review. For young people, a CDP was modelled (relative risk for condom use=1.23), along with an exploratory analysis of the impact on unintended pregnancies. For other populations, threshold analyses were used to identify the combination of costs and effect size required to make a programme cost-effective. RESULTS: The base case predicted that CDP for all young people in England could avert 5123 STI cases per annum, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £17 411. In addition, it could avert 118 pregnancies and 82 abortions and save £333 000 in associated costs. Schemes for black ethnic minorities and MSM could also be cost-effective even with relatively high costs and small effect sizes. CONCLUSION: CDPs for young people are likely to be cost-effective or cost-saving. CDPs for other high-risk populations may also be cost-effective if they can increase condom use, since high HIV prevalence in these groups imposes a considerable health and cost burden.