Real-world service costs for neovascular-AMD clinics in the United Kingdom: structured literature review and scenario analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Current cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) emphasize drug costs as the differentiator between NICE recommended anti-VEGF treatments but may neglect real-world non-drug costs of running nAMD services in the UK. To address this, this study identified real-world non-drug service cost items relevant to UK NHS nAMD clinics, including costs arising from operational strain (demand exceeding capacity). METHODS: Cost items were identified by a structured literature review of peer-reviewed and grey literature, and an expert panel of 10 UK-based ophthalmologists with relevance to real-world practice. These items underwent meta-synthesis and were then determined in a consensus exercise. RESULTS: Of 237 cost items identified, 217 (91.6%) met the consensus threshold of >0.51 and were included in the nAMD Service Non-Drug Cost Instrument (nAS). Sensitivity of cost items taken from UK Health Technology Assessment (HTA) using the nAS as the reference standard was low (HTAmin: 1.84%, 95% CI 0.50-4.65%; HTAmax: 70.51%, 95% CI 63.96-76.49%). False negative rates showed variable likelihood of misclassifying a service by cost burden depending on prevalence. Scenario analysis using cost magnitudes estimated annual per-patient clinic cost at £845 (within capacity) to £13,960 (under strain) compared to an HTAmin estimate of £210. Accounting for cost of strain under an assumed 50% increase in health resource utilization influenced cost-effectiveness in a hypothetical genericisation scenario. CONCLUSION: Findings suggested that HTA underestimates UK NHS nAMD clinic cost burden with cost of strain contributing substantial additional unmeasured expense with impact on CEA. Given potential undertreatment due to strain, durability is suggested as one of the relevant factors in CEA of nAMD anti-VEGF treatments due to robustness under limited capacity conditions affecting UK ophthalmology services.

When considering how well treatments work versus how much they cost, the focus is usually only on the price of the medicine itself. However, other real-world costs exist. In the UK, when treating certain eye problems such as neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD), there are additional expenses related to running clinics and managing treatments that often go unnoticed. To get a better understanding of these hidden costs, the study examined factors like clinic workload and the extra expenses that come with it. Ten eye doctors in the UK were consulted for their expert opinions and numerous research papers were reviewed to identify these additional costs. The study grouped different costs in a tool called the nAMD Service Non-Drug Cost Instrument (nAS). When the findings of the nAS tool were compared to the usual methods of calculating costs, it was found that the conventional approach overlooked many of the actual expenses. Busy clinics face unique challenges, such as higher operational costs associated with staffing for extended hours, emergency appointments, extended waiting times and the potential to miss optimal treatment windows. This can lead to disease progression and the onset of comorbidities, which require more complex and costly treatments. Recognizing these real costs is crucial when making decisions about treatments, especially when treatments require more frequent visits to eye clinics. This study emphasizes the importance of considering all expenses, not just the obvious ones like medication and doctor visits when determining the most effective way to manage eye conditions like nAMD in the UK.

Evaluation of care with intravitreal aflibercept treatment for UK patients with diabetic macular oedema: DRAKO study 24-month real-world outcomes.

BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVES: DRAKO (NCT02850263) was a 24-month, prospective, observational, multi-centre cohort study that enrolled patients diagnosed with diabetic macular oedema (DMO) including central involvement. The study aimed to evaluate standard of care intravitreal aflibercept (IVT-AFL) treatment in the UK. This analysis describes the 12-month outcomes for patients with prior anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatment for DMO other than IVT-AFL (C2), and 2-year outcomes for both anti-VEGF treatment-naïve patients (C1) and C2 patients. METHODS: Study eyes were treated with IVT-AFL as per local standard of care. Mean changes in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) in ETDRS letters and central subfield thickness (CST) were stratified by baseline factors. Changes in diabetic retinopathy assessments, glycated haemoglobin A1c levels and vision-related quality of life (QoL) were evaluated alongside numbers of injections administered and safety outcomes. RESULTS: For C1, mean (SD) changes from baseline in BCVA of +0.7 (12.7) letters and CST of -123.3 (104.3) µm were observed at Month 24. For C2, mean (SD) changes from baseline for BCVA of + 0.2 (10.2) letters and -0.3 (13.0) letters, and CST of -79.1 (137.6) µm and -91.6 (132.9) µm, were observed at 12 and 24 months, respectively. In Year 2, C1 and C2 patients received a mean of 3.7 and 4.3 injections, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Year 2 results indicate that IVT-AFL is an effective treatment for DMO in real-world UK clinical practice, despite relatively low injection numbers. The high baseline visual acuity and QoL scores were maintained and there was further improvement in anatomical outcomes.

Evaluation of standard-of-care intravitreal aflibercept treatment practices in patients with diabetic macular oedema in the UK: DRAKO study outcomes.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: DRAKO (NCT02850263) was a 24-month, prospective, non-interventional, multi-centre cohort study enrolling patients with diabetic macular oedema (DMO) including central involvement. The study evaluated UK standard-of-care intravitreal aflibercept (IVT-AFL) treatment. This analysis describes the treatment pathway and service provision for the anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatment-naïve (C1) and non-naïve patients (C2) who received prior anti-VEGF treatment for DMO other than IVT-AFL. METHODS: Mean changes in best-corrected visual acuity and central subfield thickness were measured and stratified by baseline factors, including ethnicity and administration of five initial monthly injections within predefined windows. Clinic visits were classified as treatment only (T1), monitoring assessment only (T2), combined visits (T3) or post-injection visits with no treatment or assessment (T4). RESULTS: Median time from decision to treat to treatment was 6 days. As a percentage of total visits, T1, T2, T3 and T4 were 7%, 42%, 48% and 3% for C1 and 11%, 39%, 48% and 2% for C2. Most IVT-AFL injections were administered by healthcare professionals (HCPs) other than doctors (C1, 57.4%; C2, 58.5%). The percentage of treatments associated with a procedure-related adverse event where at least 75% of injections were completed by the same injector role were similar for doctors and other HCPs (C1, 1.1% and 0.8%; C2, 0.7%, and 1.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate that upon DMO diagnosis, patients were treated promptly, and most visits were combined (treatment and assessment) or monitoring only. Most IVT-AFL was administered by non-physicians with a similar treatment-related safety profile as IVT-AFL administered by physicians.

Evaluation of standard of care intravitreal aflibercept treatment of diabetic macular oedema treatment-naive patients in the UK: DRAKO study 12-month outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: DRAKO (NCT02850263) is a 24-month, prospective, non-interventional, multi-centre cohort study which enroled patients diagnosed with centre-involving diabetic macular oedema (DMO). The study aims to evaluate standard of care with intravitreal aflibercept (IVT-AFL) treatment in the UK. This analysis describes the anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) treatment-naive patient cohort after 12-month follow-up. METHODS: Study eyes were treated with IVT-AFL as per local standard of care. The mean change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central subfield thickness (CST) from baseline at 12 months were measured and stratified by baseline factors. The number of injections and safety data were also evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 507 patients were enroled from 35 centres. Mean (SD) baseline BCVA was 71.4 (12.0) letters and CST was 448.7 (88.7) µm, with 63.1% of patients presenting with baseline BCVA ≥ 70 letters (mean 78.1). Mean (SD) change in BCVA of 2.5 (12.2) letters and CST of -119.1 (116.4) µm was observed at month 12. A 7.3 letter gain was observed in patients with baseline BCVA < 70 letters. Mean number (SD) of injections in year one was 6.4 (2.1). No significant adverse events were recorded. CONCLUSION: Year one results indicated that IVT-AFL was an effective treatment for DMO in standard of care UK clinical practice, maintaining or improving visual acuity in treatment-naive patients with good baseline visual acuity, despite some patients being undertreated versus the summary of product characteristics. These results also demonstrated the clinical importance and meaningful impact of diabetic retinopathy screening in the UK.

Translating evidence into practice: recommendations by a UK expert panel on the use of aflibercept in diabetic macular oedema.

OBJECTIVES: This paper describes recommendations from a panel of UK retina experts on aflibercept in diabetic macular oedema (DMO). METHODS: A roundtable meeting was held in London, UK in March 2018. The meeting was sponsored by Bayer. RESULTS: Recommendations are based on clinical experience and level 1 evidence. Clinical experience supports the evidence base, reinforcing that aflibercept should be initiated with intensive proactive dosing at 2 mg every 4 weeks. Most panel members use six initial 4-weekly doses as in Protocol T, rather than five initial monthly doses as recommended in the Summary of product characteristics (SmPC). After intensive proactive dosing, patients with a good response (meet Protocol T 'improvement' criteria ≥5-letter improvement in visual acuity [VA] and/or ≥10% improvement in central subfield thickness [CST] from baseline) but who are not yet stable should continue with 4-weekly aflibercept until stability is reached. Patients with a good response and stability should initiate monitor-and-extend (not in line with SmPC). Those with a sub-optimal response (meet 'improvement' criteria but with additional concerns e.g. fluid worsening on macular volume map) should continue with 4-weekly aflibercept but additional treatments should be considered (aflibercept is not licensed for combination treatment). For patients with no response (no change, or meeting Protocol T 'worsening' criteria [≥5-letter decrease in VA and/or ≥ 10% increase in CST] from baseline), switching to a non-anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment should be considered. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical experience reinforces that, when using aflibercept in DMO, the licensed posology or Protocol T regimens achieve the best outcomes.

Aflibercept treatment for neovascular AMD beyond the first year: consensus recommendations by a UK expert roundtable panel, 2017 update.

National recommendations on continued administration of aflibercept solution for injection after the first year of treatment for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) have been developed by an expert panel of UK retina specialists, based on clinician experience and treatment outcomes seen in year 2. The 2017 update reiterates that the treatment goal is to maintain or improve the macular structural and functional gains achieved in year 1 while attempting to reduce or minimize the treatment burden, recognizing the need for ongoing treatment. At the end of year 1 (ie, the decision visit at month 11), two treatment options should be considered: do not extend the treatment interval and maintain fixed 8-weekly dosing, or extend the treatment interval using a treat-and-extend regimen up to a maximum 12 weeks. Criteria for considering not extending the treatment interval are persistent macular fluid with stable vision, recurrent fluid, decrease in vision in the presence of fluid, macular hemorrhage, new choroidal neovascularization or any other sign(s) of exudative disease activity considered vision threatening in the opinion of the treating clinician. Treatment extension is recommended for eyes with a dry macula (ie, without macular fluid) and stable vision. Under both options, the treatment interval may be shortened if visual and/or anatomic outcomes deteriorate. Monitoring without treatment may be considered for eyes with a fluid-free macula for a minimum duration of 48 weeks. A patient completing one full year of monitoring without requiring injections may be considered for discharge from clinic. The treatment algorithm incorporates return to fixed 8-weekly dosing for disease reactivation during treatment extension and reinstatement of treatment for disease recurrence following discontinuation or discharge. For bilateral nAMD, either the eye requiring the more intensive treatment or the eye with the better vision, guided by local clinical practice, should determine the retreatment schedule overall.

A retrospective study of the real-life utilization and effectiveness of ranibizumab therapy for neovascular age-related macular degeneration in the UK.

PURPOSE: AURA was an international, retrospective, observational study that monitored the real-life use and effectiveness of ranibizumab injections in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). This paper reports the findings from the UK. METHODS: Patients who started treatment with ranibizumab between January 1, 2009, and August 31, 2009, and had documented follow-up to the end of their treatment and/or monitoring or until August 31, 2011, were retrospectively monitored; the diagnosis and subsequent decision to treat was made by the patient's own physician. Assessments included the change in visual acuity (standardized letter count) during the first and second years after start of ranibizumab therapy and resource utilization. RESULTS: Four hundred and ten patients from 13 UK centers were analyzed. The mean (standard deviation [SD]) letter score at baseline was 55.0 (17.8). The mean (SD) change in visual acuity from baseline was +6.0 (15.4) letters at year 1 and +4.1 (16.9) at year 2. Most of the patients (86.6%) completed a 3-month loading phase; the visual improvements were numerically higher in these patients. Over 2 years, the mean (SD) number of clinic visits and injections was 18.4 (5.0) and 9.0 (4.7), respectively. Resource use and visual acuity gains were greater than those observed in the global population, which included other countries enrolled in AURA (Canada, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, and Venezuela). When patients were stratified according to severity of nAMD (based on letter count at baseline), the mean change in visual acuity score at years 1 and 2 was also higher for the UK than for the global population across all subgroups. CONCLUSION: Monitoring and treatment rates were high in the UK, resulting in better visual acuity outcomes compared with other included countries. This suggests that translation of clinical study outcomes into real-life settings is achievable, but at the expense of higher resource utilization than is currently the norm in most developed countries.