Relación del tratamiento y coste con la ganancia de agudeza visual en la degeneración macular asociada a la edad / Relationship between treatment and cost with visual acuity improvement in age-related macular degeneration

Fundamento. Relacionar la ganancia de agudeza visual (AV) con el coste asistencial y de tratamiento con terapia anti-factor de cre-cimiento endotelial vascular (antiVEGF) en pacientes diagnostica-dos de degeneración macular asociada a la edad exudativa (DMAE exudativa).Pacientes y métodos. Estudio observacional, longitudinal, retros-pectivo, de pacientes ≥50 años diagnosticados de DMAE exudativa, con AV logMAR entre 0,6 y 0,06, en seguimiento y tratamiento en nuestro hospital de tercer nivel entre el 01/01/2014 y el 31/12/2018.Resultados. Se incluyeron 778 pacientes, 62,2% mujeres y media de edad 79,83±7,94 años, con 957 ojos con DMAE exudativa. La AV final global (0,65±0,45) aumentó un 3,2% respecto de la inicial. El 60,3% de los ojos recibieron antiVEGF con ranibizumab, el 10,2% con aflibercept y el 29,5% con ambos (mixto). El grupo mixto in-crementó significativamente la AV respecto de la inicial, sin dife-rencias entre grupos. Aunque el seguimiento/tratamiento fue más largo para el grupo mixto, este recibió menos inyecciones antiVE-GF y tomografías de coherencia óptica (OCT). El gasto total por año y ojo tratado fue de 1.972,7 €±824,5; los costes fueron mayores para visita, OCT y tratamiento en el grupo de aflibercept, y menores para angiografías con fluoresceína, tratamiento antiVEGF y costes totales en el grupo mixto. La ganancia decimal de AV tuvo un coste de 872 €±1.077,7 sin diferencias significativas entre grupos.Conclusiones. Los tratamientos antiVEGF con ranibizumab, afli-bercept y ambos mantuvieron la AV en pacientes con DMAE exu-dativa. En general, los costes asistenciales y de tratamiento fueron menores en el grupo que recibió ambos fármacos (AU)

Background. We examined the relationship between visual acuity changes (VA) and the cost of care and treatment with anti-vascular endothelial growth factors (antiVEGF) in patients diagnosed with age-related exudative macular degeneration(exudative AMD).Methods. Observational, longitudinal, retrospective study of pa-tients ≥50 years of age diagnosed with exudative AMD, with a log-MAR VA between 0.6 and 0.06. and 0.06. Follow-up and treatment were done in our tertiary hospital between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2018.Results. The study included 778 patients; 62.2% female and mean age 79.83±7.94 years; 957 eyes had exudative AMD. Mean of final VA (0.65±0.45) increasing 3.2% compared to initial values. Ranibi-zumab was administered to 60.3% of the eyes, aflibercept to 10.2% and ranibizumab + aflibercept (mixed group) to 29.5%. Significant increase in VA was seen in the group with the mixed treatment, with no inter-group differences. Although follow-up/treatment was longer for the mixed group, they received fewer anti-VEGF injections and optical coherence tomography (OCT). The total expenditure per year and treated eye was €1,972.7±824.5; costs were higher for visit, OCT, and treatment in the aflibercept group, and lower for fluorescein angiography, antiVEGF treatment, and total costs in the mixed group. Decimal VA gain had a cost of €872±1,077.7 with no significant inter-group differences.Conclusion. AntiVEGF treatments (ranibizumab, aflibercept, or both) maintained VA in patients with exudative AMD. Overall, care and treatment costs were lower in the group that received both drugs (AU)

Impact of neovascular age-related macular degeneration: burden of patients receiving therapies in Japan.

The chronic eye disorder, neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD), is a common cause of permanent vision impairment and blindness among the elderly in developed countries, including Japan. This study aimed to investigate the disease burden of nAMD patients under treatment, using data from the Japan National Health and Wellness surveys 2009-2014. Out of 147,272 respondents, 100 nAMD patients reported currently receiving treatment. Controls without nAMD were selected by 1:4 propensity score matching. Healthcare Resource Utilisation (HRU), Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL), and work productivity loss were compared between the groups. Regarding HRU, nAMD patients had significantly increased number of visits to any healthcare provider (HCP) (13.8 vs. 8.2), ophthalmologist (5.6 vs. 0.8), and other HCP (9.5 vs. 7.1) compared to controls after adjusting for confounding factors. Additionally, nAMD patients had reduced HRQoL and work productivity, i.e., reduced physical component summary (PCS) score (46.3 vs. 47.9), increased absenteeism (18.14% vs. 0.24%), presenteeism (23.89% vs. 12.44%), and total work productivity impairment (33.57% vs. 16.24%). The increased number of ophthalmologist visits were associated with decreased PCS score, increased presenteeism and total work productivity impairment. The current study highlighted substantial burden for nAMD patients, requiring further attention for future healthcare planning and treatment development.

Cost-Minimization Analysis of Ranibizumab Versus Aflibercept for Treating Saudi Patients With Visual Impairment Owing to Age-Related Macular Degeneration or Diabetic Macular Edema.

OBJECTIVE: The standard-of-care treatment for age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and diabetic macular edema (DME) includes inhibiting blood vessel proliferation and reducing macular edema or swelling using anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapies, such as ranibizumab and aflibercept. To conduct a cost-minimization analysis of ranibizumab and aflibercept for treating Saudi patients with visual impairment owing to AMD or DME. METHODS: Cost minimization was analyzed assuming that ranibizumab and aflibercept have equivalent clinical effectiveness. The third-party payer's perspective was used in several clinical scenarios. The base-case scenario was DME cases followed monthly using a protocol-specific follow-up. In scenario 1, AMD cases followed a treat-and-extend protocol over 2 years. In scenario 2, AMD cases followed the PRN (pro re nata) regimen over 2 years. In scenario 3, DME cases followed the PRN regimen for 1 year only. RESULTS: Aflibercept yielded cost savings of 25.75%, 31.54%, 51.30%, and 9.28% compared with ranibizumab for the base case, scenario 1, scenario 2, and scenario 3, respectively, which supports the premise that aflibercept is more cost saving than ranibizumab. CONCLUSIONS: From the third-party payer perspective, aflibercept is a cost-containment option that provides substantial savings over ranibizumab for treating Saudi patients with AMD or DME.

Presumed ocular histoplasmosis syndrome in a commercially insured population, United States.

PURPOSE: To describe epidemiologic features of patients with presumed ocular histoplasmosis syndrome (POHS) in the United States using insurance claims data and compare POHS patients with and without choroidal neovascularization (CNV). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: Patients with International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis codes for histoplasmosis retinitis on an outpatient claim in the 2014 IBM® MarketScan® Commercial Database and the Medicare Supplemental Database who were enrolled for at least 2 years after the POHS code. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Data related to testing, treatment, and direct medical costs. RESULTS: Among >50 million total MarketScan enrollees, 6,678 (13 per 100,000) had a POHS diagnosis code. Of those, 2,718 were enrolled for 2 years; 698 (25%) of whom had a CNV code. Eleven of the 13 states with the highest POHS rates bordered the Mississippi and Ohio rivers. CNV patients had significantly more eye care provider visits (mean 8.8 vs. 3.2, p<0.0001), more ophthalmic imaging tests, higher rates of treatment with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections (45% vs. 4%, p<0.0001), and incurred higher mean total yearly costs ($1,251.83 vs. $251.36, p<0.0001) than POHS patients without CNV. CONCLUSIONS: Although the relationship between Histoplasma and POHS remains controversial, geographic patterns of POHS patient residence were consistent with the traditionally reported range of the fungus. CNV in the context of POHS was associated with additional healthcare use and costs. Further research to understand POHS etiology, risk factors, prevalence, and complications is needed, along with early diagnosis and treatment strategies.

Real-World Injection Frequency and Cost of Ranibizumab and Aflibercept for the Treatment of Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration and Diabetic Macular Edema.

BACKGROUND: Ranibizumab and aflibercept are FDA-approved treatments for patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) and diabetic macular edema (DME). Although these agents differ in cost and labeled dosing, it is unclear whether these differences are reflected in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To compare the real-world frequency and cost of ranibizumab and aflibercept injections among treatment-naive and previously treated patients with nAMD and DME. METHODS: Claims data from MarketScan Research Databases were retrospectively reviewed to identify treatment-naive patients with nAMD who initiated intravitreal ranibizumab or aflibercept between January 1, 2014, and January 1, 2016, and treatment-naive patients with DME who initiated intravitreal ranibizumab or aflibercept between July 29, 2014, and July 1, 2016. Patients who switched to subsequent-line aflibercept or ranibizumab during the study period were eligible to enter previously treated subgroups. Multivariable regression models were derived to compare the per-patient frequency and cost of injections between ranibizumab- and aflibercept-treated patients with nAMD over 12 months (treatment-naive: n = 1,087 and n = 1,578; previously treated: n = 221 and n = 751) and 24 months (treatment-naive: n = 454 and n = 568; previously treated: n = 93 and n = 284) and in patients with DME over 6 months (treatment-naive: n = 507 and n = 681; previously treated: n = 53 and n = 223) and 12 months (treatment-naive: n = 326 and n = 382; previously treated: n = 24 and n = 122). RESULTS: After adjusting for patient demographics and clinical characteristics, per-patient injection frequency and cost were not significantly different between treatment-naive patients with nAMD who received ranibizumab versus aflibercept over 12 months (5.62 vs. 5.54; P = 0.52, and $11,351 vs. $10,702; P = 0.06, respectively) and 24 months (7.86 vs. 8.37; P = 0.16, and $16,286 vs. $16,666; P = 0.69, respectively). In previously treated patients with nAMD, injection frequency was significantly lower among ranibizumab- versus aflibercept-treated patients over 24 months (7.98 vs. 9.63; P = 0.03), whereas treatment costs were comparable over 12 months ($11,512 vs. $12,050; P = 0.44) and 24 months ($16,303 vs. $19,361; P = 0.13). In treatment-naive patients with DME, ranibizumab was associated with significantly fewer injections and lower costs than aflibercept over 6 months (2.60 vs. 2.92 and $3,379 vs. $5,925, respectively; both P < 0.001) and 12 months (3.33 vs. 3.87 and $4,136 vs. $7,656, respectively; both P < 0.001). Similar cost savings were observed among previously treated patients with DME who received ranibizumab over 6 months ($3,834 vs. $6,775 for aflibercept; P = 0.0001) and 12 months ($4,606 vs. $9,190; P = 0.02), despite nonsignificant differences in injection frequency during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Although the frequency and cost of ranibizumab and aflibercept injections were generally comparable among patients treated for nAMD, ranibizumab was associated with estimated per-patient-per-year cost savings of $3,500-$4,500 in those treated for DME. Most patients received fewer injections than any FDA-indicated dosing schedule, suggesting potential undertreatment that may result in suboptimal vision outcomes. DISCLOSURES: Study funding was provided by Genentech, a member of the Roche Group. The sponsor participated in the design of the study; collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation of the manuscript; and the decision to submit the article for publication. Kiss has been a consultant for and received honoraria from Alcon, Alimera, Allergan, BioMarin, Novartis, and Spark; has been on the advisory board for, a consultant for, received honoraria from, and held stock options in Adverum and Regenxbio; has been a consultant for, received honoraria from, and held stock/stock options in Fortress; has been on the advisory board for, a consultant and investigator for, and received grants and honoraria from Genentech and Regeneron; and has been on the advisory board for, a consultant for, and received grants and honoraria from Optos. Malangone-Monaco, Wilson, Varker, Stetsovsky, and Smith are employees of IBM Watson Health, which received funding from Genentech to undertake this study. Garmo is an employee of Genentech. Data reported in this manuscript were presented in part at the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (AMCP) Managed Care and Specialty Pharmacy Annual Meeting; April 23-26, 2018; Boston, MA.

Real-World Effectiveness and Real-World Cost-Effectiveness of Intravitreal Aflibercept and Intravitreal Ranibizumab in Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Real-World Studies.

INTRODUCTION: Treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) has evolved with the advent of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents such that intravitreally administered aflibercept and ranibizumab (RBZ) have become the standard of care. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have demonstrated the benefits of these agents in nAMD; however, results achieved under RCT protocols may not always be replicated in clinical practice. Assessing real-world outcomes is important to estimate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these two agents. Our objective was to assess the real-world effectiveness of intravitreally administered aflibercept and RBZ in treatment-naive patients with nAMD and determine the cost-effectiveness of intravitreally administered aflibercept versus RBZ in a real-world setting. METHODS: A multistage approach was undertaken. A systematic literature review (SLR) was completed to identify studies describing real-world outcomes in patients with nAMD treated intravitreally with aflibercept or RBZ. A meta-analysis of data identified in the SLR generated a pooled estimate of the effectiveness of intravitreally administered aflibercept and RBZ at 52 weeks and an estimate of treatment burden (injection frequency and monitoring). The impact of treatment effect modifiers, such as baseline visual acuity (VA) and age, were corrected through a multivariable meta-regression. A Markov state transition model was developed to estimate the real-world cost-effectiveness of intravitreally administered aflibercept using results from the pooled estimates for effectiveness and treatment burden as primary inputs. The analysis considered the perspective of the French National Healthcare System. RESULTS: Patients treated intravitreally with aflibercept had a mean age of 79.52 years and mean baseline VA of 55.80 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters. At week 52, mean VA gain was 5.30 ETDRS letters in patients reporting an average of 7.10 intravitreal injections of aflibercept and 8.65 visits (injection and/or monitoring). RBZ-treated patients were younger (77.28 years), with a lower mean baseline VA (52.81 ETDRS letters). At week 52, mean VA gain from baseline was 4.24 ETDRS letters, with an average of 5.88 injections and 10.10 visits (injection and/or monitoring). After correcting for differences in age (77.28 years) and baseline VA (52.81 ETDRS letters) and considering the current clinical practice with aflibercept and RBZ, the mean VA gain was 6.57 ETDRS letters for patients treated intravitreally with aflibercept and 4.42 ETDRS for patients treated intravitreally with RBZ. The cost-effectiveness analysis showed that intravitreally administered aflibercept is a more effective treatment option with an incremental gain in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (4.918 versus 4.880) and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €27,087 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis identified differences in the overall treatment approach and how ophthalmologists use intravitreally administered aflibercept and RBZ in clinical practice. These differences ultimately influence the mean real-world effectiveness of the two agents. Intravitreal treatment with aflibercept (injection frequency and patients follow-up) was consistent and in line with the European label recommendations. Patients treated intravitreally with aflibercept in clinical practice reported a mean gain in VA of similar magnitude to the mean VA gain reported in the pivotal RCT. Conversely, treatment with RBZ varied significantly across the different studies. On average, RBZ-treated patients reported a low injection frequency and a frequent follow-up, driven in part by the high number of patients treated with pro re nata (PRN) regimens. RBZ-treated patients reported gains in VA versus baseline; however, the magnitude of the gain in VA was not comparable to the VA gains reported in the RBZ pivotal RCT. Intravitreal treatment with aflibercept was associated with better mean VA outcomes and an incremental gain in QALYs compared with RBZ and can be considered cost-effective for the treatment of nAMD in patients in France despite a higher price for each individual intravitreal injection of aflibercept compared with RBZ. FUNDING: Bayer AG, Basel.

Incremental economic burden associated with exudative age-related macular degeneration: a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: The exudative age-related macular degeneration (AMD) causes considerable healthcare costs for patients and healthcare system, which are expected to grow as the population ages. The objective of this study was to assess the incremental economic burden of exudative AMD by comparing total healthcare costs between the exudative AMD group and non-AMD group to understand economic burden related to exudative AMD. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used the National Health Insurance Service database including the entire Korean population. Exudative AMD group included individuals with at least one claim for ranibizumab and one claim using the registration code for exudative AMD (V201). Non-AMD group was defined as individuals without any claims regarding the diagnostic code of H35.3 or ranibizumab. The exudative AMD group and non-AMD group were matched using a propensity-score model. Incremental healthcare resource utilization and healthcare costs were measured during a one-year follow-up by employing econometric models: ordinary least squares (OLS) with log transformation and heteroscedastic retransformation; and generalized linear model (GLM) with a log link function and gamma distribution. RESULTS: A total of 7119 exudative AMD patients were matched to 7119 non-AMD patients. The number of outpatient visits was higher in the exudative AMD group (P-value < 0.0001), while the length of hospitalization was shorter in exudative AMD group (P-value < 0.0001). Exudative AMD patients had total costs 2.13 times (95%CI, 2.08-2.17) greater than non-AMD group using OLS, and total costs 4.06 times (95%CI, 3.82-4.31) greater than non-AMD group using GLM. Annual incremental total costs were estimated as $5519 (OLS) and $3699 (GLM). CONCLUSIONS: Exudative AMD was associated with significantly increased healthcare costs compared to the non-AMD group. Attention is needed to manage the socioeconomic burden of exudative AMD.

Managed care opportunities and approaches to supporting appropriate selection of treatment for sight preservation.

When evaluating the impact of vision-destroying diseases, pharmacologic therapies represent a significant cost to patients, insurance providers, and society. Currently, up to 11 million people in the United States have some form of age-related macular degeneration (AMD), which is one of the leading causes of vision loss in older Americans. Ophthalmologists have administered more than 6 million intravitreal injections of aflibercept, bevacizumab, pegaptanib, and ranibizumab last year. Comprehensive assessment requires managed care administrators and clinicians to understand the direct and indirect costs of vision loss as well as the comparative safety and efficacy profiles for each agent. In AMD, it is critical to understand the established and emerging treatment patterns.

Treatment compliance and adherence among patients with diabetic retinopathy and age-related macular degeneration treated by anti-vascular endothelial growth factor under universal health coverage.

PURPOSE: To analyze and compare loss to follow-up (LTFU) rates between patients with diabetic retinopathy (DR) and those with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) in patients, receiving treatment with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), under universal health coverage. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the relevant data of 1264 patients receiving anti-VEGF therapy, in this cohort study. The observation period ranged from September 01, 2015 to December 31, 2018. Intervals between each procedure and the subsequent follow-up examination were measured. Demographic data, visual acuity (VA), the type of transport for treatment access, and distance between the residence and clinic were evaluated as risk factors for LTFU. RESULTS: We collected data for 841 patients with nAMD (age, 81.0 (± 8.1 years)) and 423 patients with DR (age, 67.7 (± 12.1 years)). The rate of LTFU, for at least 6 months, was 28.8% and 2.9% for patients with DR and nAMD, respectively (p < 0.001). In the DR group, 18.9% patients were lost to follow-up exceeding > 12 months. Multivariate regression analysis showed that advanced age, lack of mobility, and need for assisted transport, poor final VA despite treatment, and decrease in vision during the observational period were independent risk factors for LTFU exceeding 12 months (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: We found a high long-term LTFU rate for patients with DR, despite treatment under universal health coverage. Considering the risk of disease progression, particularly in patients with chronic DR, strategies for better compliance and adherence to therapy should be considered for optimized patient care.

Potential Lost Productivity Resulting from the Global Burden of Myopia: Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Modeling.

PURPOSE: We estimated the potential global economic productivity loss resulting from vision impairment (VI) and blindness as a result of uncorrected myopia and myopic macular degeneration (MMD) in 2015. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Understanding the economic burden of VI associated with myopia is critical to addressing myopia as an increasingly prevalent public health problem. METHODS: We estimated the number of people with myopia and MMD corresponding to critical visual acuity thresholds. Spectacle correction coverage was analyzed against country-level variables from the year of data collection; variation in spectacle correction was described best by a model based on a human development index, with adjustments for urbanization and age. Spectacle correction and myopia data were combined to estimate the number of people with each level of VI resulting from uncorrected myopia. We then applied disability weights, labor force participation rates, employment rates, and gross domestic product per capita to estimate the potential productivity lost among individuals with each level and type of VI resulting from myopia in 2015 in United States dollars (US$). An estimate of care-associated productivity loss also was included. RESULTS: People with myopia are less likely to have adequate optical correction if they are older and live in a rural area of a less developed country. The global potential productivity loss associated with the burden of VI in 2015 was estimated at US$244 billion (95% confidence interval [CI], US$49 billion-US$697 billion) from uncorrected myopia and US$6 billion (95% CI, US$2 billion-US$17 billion) from MMD. Our estimates suggest that the Southeast Asia, South Asia, and East Asia Global Burden of Disease regions bear the greatest potential burden as a proportion of their economic activity, whereas East Asia bears the greatest potential burden in absolute terms. CONCLUSIONS: Even under conservative assumptions, the potential productivity loss associated with VI and blindness resulting from uncorrected myopia is substantially greater than the cost of correcting myopia.

Using Post-market Utilisation Analysis to Support Medicines Pricing Policy: An Australian Case Study of Aflibercept and Ranibizumab Use.

OBJECTIVES: To describe how post-market utilisation analysis in Australia informs cost-effectiveness assessment and pricing decisions, using aflibercept and ranibizumab as case studies. METHODS: Pharmaceutical claims were used to identify initiators of aflibercept and ranibizumab in the year after aflibercept-listing (December 2012), and ranibizumab initiators in the year before aflibercept listing. The dispensing rates for each cohort were calculated, and their demographic and clinical characteristics compared using Kruskal-Wallis tests. RESULTS: Aflibercept and ranibizumab each accounted for half the age-related macular degeneration market following aflibercept listing. Aflibercept initiators had similar dispensing rates to ranibizumab initiators in the pre- and post-aflibercept era (~ three scripts during the first 90 days, and eight to nine scripts during the following 12 months). All cohorts were similar in terms of their age, sex, residential aged-care status and geographic remoteness, and no differences were observed in their overall co-morbidity scores and history of thromboembolic events. CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to clinical trial protocols, post-market utilisation research for ranibizumab and aflibercept demonstrates equivalent use in practice in terms of dose frequency, and the demographic and clinical characteristics of initiators. This supports Australia's decision to pay the same price for each rather than giving a premium to aflibercept. Many other countries are likely overpaying for aflibercept if their utilization patterns are similar to Australia's, and could benefit from incorporating routine utilisation assessment.

The cost-effectiveness of systematic screening for age-related macular degeneration in South Korea.

BACKGROUND: Interventions that can facilitate early diagnosis of age-related macular degeneration (AMD) will facilitate early treatment and improve clinical outcomes but there has been concerns about additional medical costs to the health care system. An examination through a retina fundus photography by a non-specialist has been suggested as a potential cost-effective alternative to a direct examination by a specialist, but limited scientific data exists on the cost-effectiveness of screening strategies for AMD. Our objective is to conduct an economic evaluation of various population-wide screening strategies for AMD among the South Korean population. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Using a Markov cohort model, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of four AMD screening strategies (opportunistic examination, opportunistic treatment, systematic photography, and systematic examination) in comparison with status quo (no screening) for South Korean adults. We projected a life time horizon to study a hypothetical cohort of 100,00 persons of age 40 with and without AMD at baseline. The outcome measures were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, cost from the societal perspective, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of each strategy. Interventions were evaluated at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of 30,000,000 KRW ($27,538) per QALY gained. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to address the model uncertainty. Opportunistic examination was strongly dominated because it generated fewer expected QALYs but incurred greater expected cost than the other screening strategies. The mean lifetime expected costs were 289,013 KRW, 363,692 KRW, 9,351,964 KRW, and 12,309,783 KRW, and the mean QALYs gained were 37.73, 37.75, 40.47, 40.68, for no screening, opportunistic treatment, systematic photography, and systematic examination, respectively. The results were most sensitive to the utility weight of mild AMD, the probability of complication from treatment, the cost of being in mild AMD, and the probability of recovery from complication. After eliminating the two weakly dominated strategies, systematic photography was cost-effective at the ICER of 3,310,448 KRW per QALY in comparison to status quo. CONCLUSIONS: Under the WTP threshold of 30,000,000 KRW per QALY, systematic photography is cost-effective for screening AMD in South Korean adults. Systematic examination by ophthalmologists generates more expected QALY and cost compared to systematic photography.

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.

Review of economic evaluations of teleophthalmology as a screening strategy for chronic eye disease in adults.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Teleophthalmology is well positioned to play a key role in screening of major chronic eye diseases. Economic evaluation of cost-effectiveness of teleophthalmology, however, is lacking. This study provides a systematic review of economic studies of teleophthalmology screening for diabetic retinopathy (DR), glaucoma and macular degeneration. METHODS: Structured search of electronic databases and full article review yielded 20 cost-related articles. Sixteen articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were retained for a narrative review: 12 on DR, 2 on glaucoma and 2 on chronic eye disease. RESULTS: Teleophthalmology for DR yielded the most cost savings when compared with traditional clinic examination. The study settings varied among urban, rural and remote settings, community, hospital and health mobile units. The most important determinant of cost-effectiveness of teleophthalmology was the prevalence of DR among patients screened, indicating an increase of cost savings with the increase of screening rates. The required patient pool size to be screened varied from 110 to 3500 patients. Other factors potentially influencing cost-effectiveness of teleophthalmology were older patient age, regular screening and full utilisation of the equipment. Teleophthalmology for glaucoma was more cost-effective compared with in-person examination. Similarly, increasing number of glaucoma patients targeted for screening yielded more cost savings. CONCLUSIONS: This economic review provides supportive evidence of cost-effectiveness of teleophthalmology for DR and glaucoma screening potentially increasing screening accessibility especially for rural and remote populations. Special selection of the targeted screening population will optimise the cost-effectiveness of teleophthalmology.

Cost-effectiveness of age-related macular degeneration study supplements in the UK: combined trial and real-world outcomes data.

AIMS: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Age-Related Eye Disease Study (AREDS) 1 & 2 supplements in patients with either bilateral intermediate age-related macular degeneration, AREDS category 3, or unilateral neovascular age-related macular degeneration AMD (nAMD), AREDS category 4. METHODS: A patient-level health state transition model based on levels of visual acuity in the better-seeing eye was constructed to simulate the costs and consequences of patients taking AREDS vitamin supplements. SETTING: UK National Health Service (NHS). The model was populated with data from AREDS and real-world outcomes and resource use from a prospective multicentre national nAMD database study containing 92 976 ranibizumab treatment episodes. INTERVENTIONS: Two treatment approaches were compared: immediate intervention with AREDS supplements or no supplements. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and healthcare costs were accrued for each strategy, and incremental costs and QALYs were calculated for the lifetime of the patient. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were employed to test the uncertainty of the model. RESULTS: For AREDS category 3, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £30 197. For AREDS category 4 compared with no intervention, AREDS supplements are more effective (10.59 vs 10.43 QALYs) and less costly (£52 074 vs 54 900) over the lifetime of the patient. CONCLUSIONS: The recommendation to publicly fund AREDS supplements to category 3 patients would depend on the healthcare system willingness to pay. In contrast, initiating AREDS supplements in AREDS category 4 patients is both cost saving and more effective than no supplement use and should therefore be considered in public health policy.

Injections frequency and health care costs in patients treated with aflibercept compared to ranibizumab: new real-life evidence from Switzerland.

BACKGROUND: Previous analyses of real-life data indicated that injection frequency and health care costs did not differ for anti-VEGF treatment with aflibercept and ranibizumab. The objective of this study was to investigate whether this finding persisted when analysing a longer time period after licensing. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of health insurance claims data of two large Swiss basic health insurance plans including 28% of the Swiss population. Patients qualified for inclusion if aflibercept or ranibizumab treatment had been initiated between June 1, 2013 and November 1, 2014. Within this set, patients with at least 12 months of continuous insurance enrolment in the previous year, 12-month follow-up, and without change of anti-VEGF drug were considered. We examined the distribution of demographic data and patient characteristics between those receiving ranibizumab and those receiving aflibercept. Numbers of injections and associated health care expenditures observed during the 12-month follow-up period after incident treatment were the two outcomes considered. In multivariate regression analyses, controlling for possible confounding factors, we compared differences in these two outcomes between patients treated with aflibercept as compared to ranibizumab. RESULTS: A total of 3'058 patients were analysed, 790 (26%) receiving aflibercept and 2`268 receiving ranibizumab (74%). The use of aflibercept (average number of injections 6.2) as compared to ranibizumab (average number of injections 5.7) in the follow-up period of 1 to 12 months, was associated with a 12% increase in the injection frequency (95% confidence interval (CI) 6-17%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Real-life data contradicts the assumption that aflibercept is used less frequently as compared to ranibizumab. This results in similar total health care expenditures for both anti-VEGF agents.