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)

The Impact of International Pricing Index Models on Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) Drug Costs in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of three international pricing index models on Medicare Part B spending for intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) drugs Design: Cost analysis Methods: U.S. and international sales data from the Multinational Integrated Data Analysis (MIDAS) database was used with data from the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to calculate Medicare Part B spending on anti-VEGF drugs Main Outcome: Medicare Part B expenditures of anti-VEGF drugs under various international pricing index models Results: Total Medicare Part B savings was greatest (75%) under the "most favored nation" proposal to peg the U.S. price to the lowest international price. Under the "most favored nation" proposal, prices of aflibercept are reduced from $1825.80 to $507.17, bevacizumab from $74.39 to $27.55, and ranibizumab (3 units or 0.3mg) from $1057.08 to $99.72. CONCLUSION: International pricing index models are one of many pricing strategies that could lead to savings in Medicare Part B costs.

Brolucizumab vs aflibercept and ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a leading cause of blindness worldwide and is the most common cause of blindness in developed countries. Despite antivascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapy demonstrating improvements in visual and anatomical outcomes, unmet needs remain. Brolucizumab-dbll (ie, brolucizumab), a VEGF inhibitor for treatment of neovascular (wet) AMD and recently approved by the FDA for its treatment of wet AMD, attempts to mitigate treatment burden through less frequent injections. OBJECTIVE: To assess the incremental cost-effectiveness of brolucizumab compared with aflibercept and ranibizumab, given similar costs per injection and the potential for longer dosing intervals based on phase 3 clinical trial data. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to model the treatment of wet AMD patients with brolucizumab vs aflibercept and vs ranibizumab over a lifetime time horizon (base case) and 5-year time horizon (scenario analysis). The Markov model consisted of 3 primary health states: on treatment, off treatment, and death. Markov substates (5 total) described visual acuity (VA) ranging from no vision impairment to blindness. These VA-based substates were defined by best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) values measured using Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters. Fixed-dosing regimens for each therapy were included in the model: dosing every 4 weeks (q4w) for the first 3 months followed by dosing q8w/q12w for brolucizumab, dosing q4w for the first 3 months followed by dosing q8w for aflibercept, and q4w for ranibizumab. RESULTS: In the base case, brolucizumab was less costly than aflibercept ($63,614 vs $72,189), and brolucizumab generated 0.0079 more quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) than aflibercept (4.580 vs 4.572). Lower total costs with brolucizumab were driven by reduced drug costs ($56,432 vs $64,057), reduced administration costs ($6,013 vs $6,825), and reduced monitoring costs ($1,168 vs $1,306). When evaluating the cost-effectiveness of brolucizumab over a 5-year time horizon, brolucizumab was less costly than aflibercept ($44,644 vs $50,772) and generated an additional 0.0049 QALYs (2.953 vs 2.948). Additionally, brolucizumab was less costly than ranibizumab ($63,614 vs $128,163) and generated 0.0078 more QALYs than ranibizumab (4.580 vs 4.572) in the base case. Lower total costs with brolucizumab were driven by reduced drug costs ($56,432 vs $114,516), reduced administration costs ($6,013 vs $11,541), and reduced monitoring costs ($1,168 vs $2,107). When evaluating the cost-effectiveness of brolucizumab over a 5-year time horizon, brolucizumab was less costly than ranibizumab ($44,644 vs $89,665), and brolucizumab generated an additional 0.0046 QALYs (2.953 vs 2.948). CONCLUSIONS: Brolucizumab can be cost saving and cost-effective compared with aflibercept and ranibizumab in the treatment of wet AMD. DISCLOSURES: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation provided funding to Xcenda for the cost-effectiveness analysis and preparation of this manuscript. Carlton is an employee of Xcenda. Agashivala is employed by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation; Yu was an employee of Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation at the time of this study. Hassan reports personal fees from iOPEN, BVI/Visitrec, ArcticDx, Bayer, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Broadspot, BMC, Katalyst Surgical, Alcon, Vitreq, Surgicube, personal Ocugenix, Regeneron, Allergan, Oculus Surgical, Novartis, Genentech, and Eyepoint, unrelated to this work. Wykoff reports personal fees from Corcept Therapeutics, DORC, EyePoint, Gyroscope, IVERIC Bio, Merck, Notal Vision, ONL Therapeutics, Oxurion, Palatin, PolyPhotonix, Takeda, Thea Open Innovation; grants from Aerie Pharmaceuticals, Aldeyra, Gemini Therapeutics, Graybug Vision, IONIS Pharmaceutical, LMRI, Mylan, Neurotech Pharmaceuticals, Outlook Pharmaceuticals, Samsung Bioepis, Senju, Taiwan Liposome Company, Xbrane BioPharma, Santen; and grants and personal fees from Adverum, Allergan, Apellis, Chengdu Kanghong Biotechnologies (KHB), Clearside Biomedical, Genentech, Kodiak Sciences, NGM Biopharmaceuticals, Novartis, Opthea, Recens Medical, Regenxbio, Roche, and Regeneron, unrelated to this work. This research was presented as a virtual poster at the AMCP 2020 Annual Meeting, April 2020.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of first-line treatments for advanced epidermal growth factor receptor-mutant non-small cell lung cancer patients.

OBJECTIVES: Recent studies showed prolonged survival for advanced epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutant non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients treated with both monotherapies and combined therapies. However, high costs limit clinical applications. Thus, we conducted this cost-effectiveness analysis to explore an optimal first-line treatment for advanced EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Survival data were extracted from six clinical trials, including ARCHER1050 (dacomitinib vs. gefitinib); FLAURA (osimertinib vs. gefitinib/erlotinib); JO25567 and NEJ026 (bevacizumab +erlotinib vs. erlotinib); NEJ009 (gefitinib +chemotherapy vs. gefitinib); and NCT02148380 (gefitinib +chemotherapy vs. gefitinib vs. chemotherapy) trials. Cost-related data were obtained from hospitals and published literature. The effect parameter (quality-adjusted life year [QALY]) was the reflection of both survival and utility. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), average cost-effectiveness ratio (ACER), and net benefit were calculated, and the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was set at $30828/QALY from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Sensitivity analysis was performed to explore the stability of results. RESULTS: We compared treatment groups with control groups in each trial. ICERs were $1897750.74/QALY (ARCHER1050), $416560.02/QALY (FLAURA), -$477607.48/QALY (JO25567), -$464326.66/QALY (NEJ026), -$277121.22/QALY (NEJ009), -$399360.94/QALY (gefitinib as comparison, NCT02148380), and -$170733.05/QALY (chemotherapy as comparison, NCT02148380). Moreover, ACER and net benefit showed that the combination of EGFR-TKI with chemotherapy and osimertinib was of more economic benefit following first-generation EGFR-TKIs. Sensitivity analyses showed that the impact of utilities and monotherapy could be cost-effective with a 50% cost reduction. CONCLUSION: First-generation EGFR-TKI therapy remained the most cost-effective treatment option for advanced EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients. Our results could serve as both a reference for both clinical practice and the formulation of medical insurance reimbursement.

Factors Associated With a Patient's Decision to Select a Cost-effective vs the Most Effective Therapy for Their Own Eye Disease.

Importance: Ten percent of the Medicare Part B budget is spent on aflibercept, used to treat a myriad of ocular neovascular diseases. A substantial portion of these costs can be attributed to a few hundred ophthalmologists, raising concerns regarding the influence of pharmaceutical companies on the choice of medication by a relatively small group of clinicians. One approach to protect patients' health care interests is to include them in deliberations on the choice of therapy for their eye disease. Objective: To examine factors associated with patients' choice between an effective and less expensive off-label drug or a more effective, but also more expensive, US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved drug. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort analysis used data from the satellite office of a tertiary referral center from August 2, 2013, to April 9, 2018. Insured patients initiating treatment with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor were included in the analysis. Data were analyzed from March 26, 2018, to June 10, 2020. Interventions: Patients were asked to choose between bevacizumab (approximately $100 per dose), a chemotherapy that is effective, but not FDA approved, for the treatment of ocular vascular disease, or aflibercept (approximately $2000 per dose), an FDA-approved drug for ocular vascular disease that may be more effective than bevacizumab in some patients. Independent of this choice, patients were separately asked by a study coordinator to participate in an invasive clinical study for which they would not be compensated, there was a small risk for an adverse event, and they would not personally benefit from participating (a surrogate marker for altruism). Main Outcomes and Measures: Factors associated with patients' choice of medication, including age, sex, ocular disease, race, and participation in an invasive clinical study. Results: A total of 189 patients were included in the analysis (106 women [56%]; mean [SEM] age, 74.6 [0.8] years). Despite being told that it may not be as effective as aflibercept, 100 patients (53%) selected bevacizumab for their own eye care. An act of altruism (ie, participation in an invasive clinical study) when the patient was making a choice between the 2 drugs was associated with a patient's choice of bevacizumab (odds ratio [OR], 7.03; 95% CI, 2.27-21.80; P < .001); the OR for selecting bevacizumab for patients who never agreed to participate in the clinical study was 0.45 (95% CI, 0.25-0.83; P = .001). Age (OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.97-1.03; P = .86), race (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.41-1.22; P = .21), sex (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.39-1.35; P = .31), presence of diabetes (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 0.59-3.93; P = .39), and type of eye disease (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.30-1.04; P = .07) were not associated with choice of therapy. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that clinicians must consider the ethical implications of the influence of altruism when patients participate in the decision between cost-effective vs the most effective medicines for their own health care.

Cost-Utility of Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Treatment for Macular Edema Secondary to Central Retinal Vein Occlusion.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the cost-utility of treatment for macular edema in central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) using intravitreal injections of the anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents bevacizumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept. DESIGN: Decision analysis model of cost-utility. PARTICIPANTS: Data from study participants in the Lucentis, Eylea, Avastin in Vein Occlusion (LEAVO) study. METHODS: A decision analysis of a disease simulation model was used to calculate comparative cost-utility of intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB), intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR), and intravitreal aflibercept (IVA) for the treatment of macular edema associated with CRVO based on data from the LEAVO study. Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services data were used to calculate associated modeled costs in a hospital- or facility-based and nonfacility setting from a third-party payer perspective, and societal costs also were calculated. Cost utility was calculated based on the preserved visual utility during the 2 years of the study and also by estimating utility for the expected lifetime. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost of treatment, cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: From the third-party payer perspective, the estimated lifetime costs per QALY in the facility and nonfacility settings were $39 325 and $17 944, respectively, for IVB; $114 095 and $92 653, respectively, for IVR; and $78 935 and $63 270, respectively, for IVA. From the societal perspective, the estimated lifetime costs per QALY in the facility setting were $52 754 for IVB, $128 242 for IVR, and $86 262 for IVA. The ICER of IVA compared with that of IVB was $153 633/QALY from the third-party facility setting and $152 992/QALY from the societal perspective. The use of IVB compared with IVR and IVA compared with IVR were cost-saving interventions (ICER, <0) regardless of the perspective or setting. CONCLUSIONS: In the treatment of macular edema in CRVO, IVB yields the best cost utility among the 3 anti-VEGF agents modeled. Intravitreal aflibercept maintains acceptable lifetime cost per QALY while having a favorable cost utility compared with IVR.

A Cost-Benefit Analysis of VEGF-Inhibitor Therapy for Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration in the United States.

PURPOSE: To perform a societal cost-benefit analysis comparing intravitreal bevacizumab (Avastin), ranibizumab (Lucentis), and aflibercept (Eylea) monotherapies for treating neovascular age-related macular degeneration (NVAMD). DESIGN: Cost-benefit analysis. METHODS: Center for Value-Based Medicine using published clinical trial and Medicare data. PATIENT POPULATION: 168,400 estimated 2018 U.S. patients with new-onset NVAMD. Procedure(s): cost-benefit analysis using 2018 U.S. real dollars. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: 11-year direct ophthalmic medical costs expended for bevacizumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept monotherapies were compared with ophthalmic and nonophthalmic direct medical, direct nonmedical, and indirect medical (productivity) costs saved by the therapies. RESULTS: Bevacizumab monotherapy had an individual, 11-year $14,772 treatment cost and net $357,680 societal return (11-year 2,421% return on investment [ROI]). Ranibizumab therapy cost $106,582 and returned $265,870 to society (249% ROI), whereas aflibercept treatment cost $61,811 and returned $310,611 to society (503% ROI). The 2018 NVAMD overall treatment cohort, 11-year net societal gain was $28.5 billion to patients and insurers, with $24.2 billion (84.9%) coming from bevacizumab therapy, $0.7 billion (2.5%) from ranibizumab therapy, and $3.6 billion (12.6%) from aflibercept therapy. Substituting bevacizumab for ranibizumab and aflibercept in the 2018 new-onset NVAMD patients would save an estimated $1.343 billion over 11 years. Vascular endothelial growth factor-inhibitor (VEGF-I) therapy in 2018 should contribute $12.2 billion to the Gross Domestic Product over 11 years. Late treatment would decrease this by 78% to $2.7 billion. CONCLUSIONS: Intravitreal NVAMD bevacizumab, ranibizumab and aflibercept monotherapies accrue considerable financial, ROIs to patients and insurers as they increase national wealth.

Movement of Poly-ADP Ribose (PARP) Inhibition into Frontline Treatment of Ovarian Cancer.

The use of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors in the front-line management of advanced ovarian cancer has recently emerged as an exciting strategy with the potential to improve outcomes for patients with advanced ovarian cancer. In this article, we review the results of four recently published Phase III randomised controlled trials evaluating the use of PARP inhibitors in the primary treatment of ovarian cancer (SOLO1, PRIMA, PAOLA-1, and VELIA). Collectively, the studies suggest that PARP maintenance in the upfront setting is most beneficial among patients with BRCA-associated ovarian cancers (hazard ratios range from 0.31 to 0.44), followed by patients with tumours that harbour homologous recombination deficiencies (hazard ratios range from 0.33 to 0.57). All three studies that included an all-comer population were able to demonstrate benefit of PARP inhibitors, regardless of biomarker status. The FDA has approved olaparib for front-line maintenance therapy among patients with BRCA-associated ovarian cancers, and niraparib for all patients, regardless of biomarker status. In determining which patients should be offered front-line maintenance PARP inhibitors, and which agent to use, there are multiple factors to consider, including FDA indication, dosing preference, toxicity, risks versus benefits for each patient population, and cost. There are ongoing studies further exploring the front-line use of PARP inhibitors, including the potential downstream effects of PARP-inhibitor resistance in the recurrent setting, combining PARP-inhibitors with other anti-angiogenic drugs, immunotherapeutic agents, and inhibitors of pathways implicated in PARP inhibitor resistance.

Eliminating Visual Acuity and Dilated Fundus Examinations Improves Cost Efficiency of Performing Optical Coherence Tomogrpahy-Guided Intravitreal Injections.

PURPOSE: The clinic efficiency and cost savings achieved by eliminating formal visual acuity (VA) and dilated fundus examinations (DFEs) were assessed for established patients receiving optical coherence tomography (OCT)-guided intravitreal injections. DESIGN: Comparative cost analysis. METHODS: Two different treatment models were evaluated. The first model included patients undergoing routine VA assessment, DFEs, OCT imaging, and intravitreal injections. The second model eliminated the routine VA assessment and DFE while using OCT imaging through an undilated pupil followed by the intravitreal injection. The 2 models incorporated both bevacizumab and aflibercept. The number of patients per clinic day, the cost per visit, and the daily revenues were compared between the 2 models. RESULTS: Optimized schedules with and without VA assessments and DFEs allowed for 48 and 96 patients to be injected per day, respectively. Excluding drug costs, the cost per encounter for the visits with and without a DFE were $39.33 and $22.63, respectively. Including the drug costs, the costs per encounter for the visits with and without a DFE were $85.55 and $68.85 for bevacizumab and $1787.58 and $17770.88 for aflibercept, respectively. Once the reimbursements for each visit type were included, the clinics that eliminated the VA and DFEs were more cost efficient. CONCLUSION: Eliminating both VA assessments and DFEs for patients undergoing OCT-guided retreatment with intravitreal injections resulted in decreased exposure times between patients and clinic staff, decreased cost per encounter, and increased patient volumes per clinic day, resulting in improved clinic efficiency and safety while seeing more patients in a clinic day.

Intravitreal Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Cost Savings Achievable with Increased Bevacizumab Reimbursement and Use.

PURPOSE: To model Medicare Part B and patient savings associated with increased bevacizumab payment and use for intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy. DESIGN: Cost analysis. PARTICIPANTS: Intelligent Research in Sight (IRIS®) Registry data. METHODS: Medicare claims and IRIS® Registry data were used to calculate Medicare Part B expenditures and patient copayments for anti-VEGF agents with increasing reimbursement and use of bevacizumab relative to ranibizumab and aflibercept. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Medicare Part B costs and patient copayments for anti-VEGF agents in the Medicare fee-for-service population. RESULTS: Increasing bevacizumab reimbursement to $125.78, equalizing the dollar margin with aflibercept, would result in Medicare Part B savings of $468 million and patient savings of $119 million with a 10% increase in bevacizumab market share. CONCLUSIONS: Increased use of bevacizumab achievable with increased reimbursement to eliminate the financial disincentive to its use would result in substantial savings for the Medicare Part B program and for patients receiving anti-VEGF intravitreal injections.

Cost-Utility Analysis of VEGF Inhibitors for Treating Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration.

PURPOSE: To perform 11- and 2-year health care sector (ophthalmic) and societal cost perspective reference case, cost-utility analyses comparing bevacizumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept monotherapies for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (NVAMD). DESIGN: Cost-utility analysis. METHODS: The authors performed 11-year and 2-year ophthalmic and societal cost perspective, cost-utility analyses comparing bevacizumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept monotherapies for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (NVAMD). We employed patient utilities, bilateral outcomes, 2018 U.S. dollars, vision-related mortality, a Medicare fee schedule, and CATT (Comparison of Age-Related Macular Degeneration Treatments) study and VIEW (VEGF Trap-Eye: Investigation of Efficacy and Safety in Wet AMD) trial. Cochrane data were also used. SETTING: Center for Value-Based Medicine. Patient/study population: patients with NVAMD. INTERVENTION: Cost-utility analyses using published data. Data-modeled 10-year vision outcomes were modeled forward to year 11. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENT: These included cost-utility ratios (CURs), costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. $100,00/QALY was considered the US cost-effectiveness upper limit. RESULTS: Bevacizumab and ranibizumab each conferred an 11-year, 1.339 QALY gain versus observation. Aflibercept conferred a 1.380 QALY gain. Aflibercept conferred greater QALY gain for less cost than ranibizumab but was not cost-effective compared to bevacizumab ($1,151,451/QALY incremental CUR). The average ophthalmic cost perspective CUR for bevacizumab was $11,033/QALY, $79,600/QALY for ranibizumab, and $44,801/QALY for aflibercept. Eleven-year therapies saved a 1.0 year-of-life loss without treatment from the 11.0-year life expectancy. Early treatment was 138%-149% more cost-effective than late treatment. Two-year therapy prevented a 1-month-of-life loss, and revealed bevacizumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept conferred 0.141, 0.141, and 0.164 QALY gains, respectively, with corresponding average CURs of $40,371/QALY, $335,726/QALY, and $168,006/QALY, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: From an ophthalmic (medical) cost perspective, bevacizumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept NVAMD monotherapies were all cost-effective over 11 years, with bevacizumab 6.21× more cost-effective than ranibizumab and 3.06× more cost-effective than aflibercept. Two-year modeling revealed bevacizumab was cost-effective, whereas ranibizumab and aflibercept were not. Early treatment was critical for obtaining optimal vision and cost-effectiveness, as is long-term follow-up and adherence to treatment.

Treatment regimens for administration of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents for neovascular age-related macular degeneration.

BACKGROUND: Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is one of the leading causes of permanent blindness worldwide. The current mainstay of treatment for neovascular AMD (nAMD) is intravitreal injection of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents: aflibercept, ranibizumab, and off-label bevacizumab. Injections can be given monthly, every two or three months ('extended-fixed'), or as needed (pro re nata (PRN)). A variant of PRN is 'treat-and-extend' whereby injections are resumed if recurrence is detected and then delivered with increasing intervals. Currently, injection frequency varies among practitioners, which underscores the need to characterize an optimized approach to nAMD management. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effects of monthly versus non-monthly intravitreous injection of an anti-VEGF agent in people with newly diagnosed nAMD. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and three trials registers from 2004 to October 2019; checked references; handsearched conference abstracts; and contacted pharmaceutical companies to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared different treatment regimens for anti-VEGF agents in people with newly diagnosed nAMD. We considered standard doses only (ranibizumab 0.5 mg, bevacizumab 1.25 mg, aflibercept 2.0 mg, or a combination of these). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods for trial selection, data extraction, and analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 RCTs. The total number of participants was 7732, ranging from 37 to 2457 in each trial. The trials were conducted worldwide. Of these, six trials exclusively took place in the US, and three included centers from more than one country. Eight trials were at high risk of bias for at least one domain and all trials had at least one domain at unclear risk of bias. Seven trials (3525 participants) compared a PRN regimen with a monthly injection regimen, of which five trials delivered four to eight injections using standard PRN and three delivered nine or 10 injections using a treat-and-extend regimen in the first year. The overall mean change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at one year was +8.8 letters in the monthly injection group. Compared to the monthly injection, there was moderate-certainty evidence that the mean difference (MD) in BCVA change at one year for the standard PRN subgroup was -1.7 letters (95% confidence interval (CI) -2.8 to -0.6; 4 trials, 2299 participants), favoring monthly injections. There was low-certainty evidence of a similar BCVA change with the treat-and-extend subgroup (0.5 letters, 95% CI -3.1 to 4.2; 3 trials, 1226 participants). Compared to monthly injection, there was low-certainty evidence that fewer participants gained 15 or more lines of vision with standard PRN treatment at one year (risk ratio (RR) 0.87, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.99; 4 trials, 2299 participants) and low-certainty evidence of a similar gain with treat-and-extend versus monthly regimens (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.36; 3 trials, 1169 participants). The mean change in central retinal thickness was a decrease of -166 µm in the monthly injection group; the MD compared with standard PRN was 21 µm (95% CI 6 to 32; 4 trials, 2215 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and with treat-and extend was 22 µm (95% CI 37 to -81 µm; 2 trials, 635 participants; low-certainty evidence), in favor of monthly injection. Only one trial (498 participants) measured quality of life and reported no evidence of a difference between regimens, but data could not be extracted (low-certainty evidence). Both PRN regimens (standard and 'treat-and-extend') used fewer injections than monthly regimens (standard PRN: MD -4.6 injections, 95% CI -5.4 to -3.8; 4 trials, 2336 participants; treat-and-extend: -2.4 injections, 95% CI -2.7 to -2.1 injections; moderate-certainty evidence for both comparisons). Two trials provided cost data (1105 participants, trials conducted in the US and the UK). They found that cost differences between regimens were reduced if bevacizumab rather than aflibercept or ranibizumab were used, since bevacizumab was less costly (low-certainty evidence). PRN regimens were associated with a reduced risk of endophthalmitis compared with monthly injections (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.13, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.46; 6 RCTs, 3175 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Using data from all trials included in this review, we estimated the risk of endophthalmitis with monthly injections to be 8 in every 1000 people per year. The corresponding risk for people receiving PRN regimens was 1 in every 1000 people per year (95% CI 0 to 4). Three trials (1439 participants) compared an extended-fixed regimen (number of injections reported in only one large trial: 7.5 in one year) with monthly injections. There was moderate-certainty evidence that BCVA at one year was similar for extended-fixed and monthly injections (MD in BCVA change compared to extended-fixed group: -1.3 letters, 95% CI -3.9 to 1.3; RR of gaining 15 letters or more: 0.94, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.10). The change in central retinal thickness was a decrease of 137 µm in the monthly group; the MD with the extended-fixed group was 8 µm (95% CI -11 to 27; low-certainty evidence). The frequency of endophthalmitis was lower in the extended-fixed regimen compared to the monthly group, but this estimate was imprecise (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.11; low-certainty evidence). If we assumed a risk of 8 cases of endophthalmitis in 1000 people receiving monthly injections over one year, then the corresponding risk with extended-fixed regimen was 2 in 1000 people (95% CI 0 to 9). Other evidence comparing different extended-fixed or PRN regimens yielded inconclusive results. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found that, at one year, monthly regimens are probably more effective than PRN regimens using seven or eight injections in the first year, but the difference is small and clinically insignificant. Endophthalmitis is probably more common with monthly injections and differences in costs between regimens are higher if aflibercept or ranibizumab are used compared to bevacizumab. This evidence only applies to settings in which regimens are implemented as described in the trials, whereas undertreatment is likely to be common in real-world settings. There are no data from RCTs on long-term effects of different treatment regimens.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of Anti-VEGF treatments for age-related macular degeneration: a Brazilian perspective.

PURPOSE: To study the cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab and bevacizumab for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration. METHODS: We used a decision tree model to analyze the cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab and bevacizumab for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration, from the Brazilian Public Health System (SUS) perspective. Ranibizumab and bevacizumab were administered to patients with the same treatment procedure, and the difference in treatment costs was calculated based on the cost of the drugs. Direct costs were estimated using the information provided by the Brazilian SUS. Effectiveness in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) was calculated based on the utility values for visual impairment. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated by comparing both treatments. The analytical horizon was one year. RESULTS: The decision tree analysis showed that the difference in treatment effectiveness was 0.01 QALY. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio showed that ranibizumab treatment required an incremental annual cost of more than R$ 2 million to generate 1 additional QALY, as compared to bevacizumab. CONCLUSIONS: From the Brazilian SUS perspective, bevacizumab is more cost-effective than ranibizumab for the treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Its use could allow potential annual savings in health budget.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of Anti-VEGF treatments for age-related macular degeneration: a Brazilian perspective / Estudo de custo-efetividade de tratamentos para a degeneração macular relacionada à idade: uma perspectiva brasileira

ABSTRACT Purpose: To study the cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab and bevacizumab for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration. Methods: We used a decision tree model to analyze the cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab and bevacizumab for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration, from the Brazilian Public Health System (SUS) perspective. Ranibizumab and bevacizumab were administered to patients with the same treatment procedure, and the difference in treatment costs was calculated based on the cost of the drugs. Direct costs were estimated using the information provided by the Brazilian SUS. Effectiveness in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) was calculated based on the utility values for visual impairment. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated by comparing both treatments. The analytical horizon was one year. Results: The decision tree analysis showed that the difference in treatment effectiveness was 0.01 QALY. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio showed that ranibizumab treatment required an incremental annual cost of more than R$ 2 million to generate 1 additional QALY, as compared to bevacizumab. Conclusions: From the Brazilian SUS perspective, bevacizumab is more cost-effective than ranibizumab for the treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Its use could allow potential annual savings in health budget.

RESUMO Objetivo: Estudar o custo-efetividade do ranibizumabe e bevacizumabe no tratamento da degeneração macular relacionada à idade neovascular. Métodos: Utilizamos um modelo de árvore de decisão para analisar a relação custo-efetividade do ranibizumabe e bevacizumabe no tratamento da degeneração macular relacionada à idade, sob a perspectiva do Sistema Único de Saúde. O ranibizumabe e bevacizumabe foram administrados a pacientes com o mesmo procedimento de tratamento, e a diferença nos custos do tratamernto foi calculada com base no custo dos medicamentos. Os custos diretos foram estimados utilizando as informações fornecidas pelo SUS. A efetividade foi determinada em anos de vida ajustados pela qualidade (QALY) baseados em valores de utilidade em deficiênciavisual. A razãoincremental custo-efetividadefoicalculada comparando os dois tratamentos. O horizonte analítico foi de um ano. Resultados: A análise da árvore de decisão mostrou que a diferença na efetividade do tratamento foi de 0,01 QALY. A razão incremental de custo-efetividade mostrou que o tratamento com ranibizumabe exigiu um custo anual incremental de R$ 2 milhões para gerar um QALY adicional, em comparação ao bevacizumabe. Conclusões: Do ponto de vista do SUS, o bevacizumabe é mais custo-efetivo que o ranibizumabe no tratamento da degeneração macular relacionada à idade neovascular. O seu uso poderia gerar uma grande economia anual para o orçamento em saúde.

Cost-effectiveness of Intravitreal Ranibizumab With Verteporfin Photodynamic Therapy Compared With Ranibizumab Monotherapy for Patients With Polypoidal Choroidal Vasculopathy.

Importance: The EVEREST II trial showed that for patients with polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy (PCV), intravitreal ranibizumab in combination with verteporfin photodynamic therapy improves visual acuity relative to ranibizumab monotherapy. However, whether combination therapy is incrementally cost-effective relative to monotherapy during a lifetime is unclear. Objective: To assess the incremental cost-effectiveness of combination therapy compared with ranibizumab monotherapy in patients with PCV. Design, Setting, and Participants: This model-based, economic evaluation used 2018 unit cost data from a tertiary eye hospital in Singapore, first- and second-year outcomes and resource use data from a multicenter trial across various Asian countries (EVEREST II) to model a hypothetical cohort of patients with symptomatic PCV. Scenario analyses and deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to examine uncertainty. Data were collected from October 2018 through April 2019 and analyzed from March through October 2019. Interventions: This model used data from the EVEREST II trial, in which all participants were given 0.5 mg of intravitreal ranibizumab once every 4 weeks for the first 3 months. Subsequent administration occurred as needed. For participants receiving combination therapy, standard fluence (50 J/cm3) photodynamic therapy with 6-mg/m2 verteporfin was administered once during the first 3 months and thereafter as needed. Main Outcomes and Measures: Incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for combination therapy relative to monotherapy for patients with PCV. Results: In this model based on a cohort of 1000 patients aged 68 years, a patient with PCV incurred a total cost in Singapore dollars (SGD) of 92 327 (US $67 399) with combination therapy and SGD 92 371 (US $67 431) with monotherapy during a lifetime horizon, generating a modest cost savings of SGD 44 (US $32) per patient undergoing combination therapy. Lifetime QALYs were estimated to be 7.87 for combination therapy and 7.85 for monotherapy, for an incremental gain of 0.02 QALYs. Combination therapy remained cost-saving or cost-effective in all lifetime scenarios modeled, but during shorter time horizons and at lower monotherapy costs, it may not be cost-effective. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found combination therapy to be a dominant (more effective and less costly) strategy, being similar in costs and slightly more effective than ranibizumab monotherapy during a lifetime horizon. However, decreasing the time horizon to less than 10 years and/or reductions in the cost of monotherapy may result in combination therapy no longer being cost-effective.

The estimated healthcare cost of diabetic retinopathy in Indonesia and its projection for 2025.

PURPOSE: To estimate the total healthcare cost associated with diabetic retinopathy (DR) in type 2 diabetes in Indonesia and its projection for 2025. METHODS: A prevalence-based cost-of-illness model was constructed from previous population-based DR study. Projection for 2025 was derived from estimated diabetes population in 2025. Direct treatment costs of DR were estimated from the perspective of healthcare. Patient perspective costs were obtained from thorough interview including only transportation cost and lost of working days related to treatment. We developed four cost-of-illness models according to DR severity level, DR without necessary treatment, needing laser treatment, laser +intravitreal (IVT) injection and laser + IVT +vitrectomy. All costs were estimated in 2017 US$. RESULTS: The healthcare costs of DR in Indonesia were estimated to be $2.4 billion in 2017 and $8.9 billion in 2025. The total cost in 2017 consisted of the cost for no DR and mild-moderate non-proliferative DR (NPDR) requiring eye screening ($25.9 million), severe NPDR or proliferative DR (PDR) requiring laser treatment ($0.25 billion), severe NPDR or PDR requiring both laser and IVT injection ($1.75 billion) and advance level of PDR requiring vitrectomy ($0.44 billion). CONCLUSIONS: The estimated healthcare cost of DR in Indonesia in 2017 was considerably high, nearly 2% of the 2017 national state budget, and projected to increase significantly to more than threefold in 2025. The highest cost may incur for DR requiring both laser and IVT injection. Therefore, public health intervention to delay or prevent severe DR may substantially reduce the healthcare cost of DR in Indonesia.

Economic Value of Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Treatment for Patients With Wet Age-Related Macular Degeneration in the United States.

Importance: Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) is a breakthrough treatment for wet age-related macular degeneration (wAMD), the most common cause of blindness in western countries. Anti-VEGF treatment prevents vision loss and has been shown to produce vision gains lasting as long as 5 years. Although this treatment is costly, the benefits associated with vision gains are large. Objective: To estimate the economic value of benefits, costs for patients with wAMD, and societal value in the United States generated from vision improvement associated with anti-VEGF treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation study used data from the published literature to simulate vision outcomes for a cohort of 168 820 patients with wAMD aged 65 years or older and to translate them into economic variables. Data were collected and analyzed from March 2018 to November 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: Main outcomes included patient benefits, costs, and societal value. Each outcome was estimated for a newly diagnosed cohort and the full population across 5 years, with a focus on year 3 as the primary outcome because data beyond that point may be less representative of the general population. Drug costs were the weighted mean across anti-VEGF therapies. Two current treatment scenarios were considered: less frequent injections (mean [SD], 8.2 [1.6] injections annually) and more frequent injections (mean [range], 10.5 [6.8-13.1] injections annually). The 2 treatment innovation scenarios, improved adherence and best case, had the same vision outcomes as the current treatment scenarios had but included more patients treated from higher initiation and lower discontinuation. Results: The study population included 168 820 patients aged 65 years at the time of diagnosis with wAMD. The underlying clinical trials that were used to parameterize the model did not stratify visual acuity outcomes or treatment frequency by sex; therefore, the model parameters could not be stratified by sex. The current treatment scenario of less frequent injections generated $1.1 billion for the full population in year 1 and $5.1 billion in year 3, whereas the scenario of more frequent injections generated $1.6 billion (year 1) and $8.2 billion (year 3). Three-year benefits ranged from $7.3 billion to $11.4 billion in the improved adherence scenario and from $9.7 billion to $15.0 billion if 100% of the patients initiated anti-VEGF treatment and the discontinuation rates were 6% per year or equivalent to clinical trial discontinuation (best-case scenario). Societal value (patient benefits net of treatment cost) ranged from $0.9 billion to $3.0 billion across 3 years in the current treatment scenarios and from $0.9 billion to $4.3 billion in the treatment innovation scenarios. Conclusions and Relevance: This study's findings suggest that improved vision associated with anti-VEGF treatment may provide economic value to patients and society if the outcomes match published outcomes data used in these analyses; however, future innovations that increase treatment utilization may result in added economic benefit.