Cost-effectiveness model for neovascular age-related macular degeneration: comparing early and late treatment with pegaptanib sodium based on visual acuity

The Application of Aptamer and Research Progress in Liver Disease

Aptamers, as a kind of small-molecule nucleic acid, have attracted much attention since their discovery. Compared with biological reagents such as antibodies, aptamers have the advantages of small molecular weight, low immunogenicity, low cost, and easy modification. At present, aptamers are mainly used in disease biomarker discovery, disease diagnosis, treatment, and targeted drug delivery vectors. In the process of screening and optimizing aptamers, it is found that there are still many problems need to be solved such as the design of the library, optimization of screening conditions, the truncation of screened aptamer, and the stability and toxicity of the aptamer. In recent years, the incidence of liver-related diseases is increasing year by year and the treatment measures are relatively lacking, which has attracted the people's attention in the application of aptamers in liver diseases. This article mainly summarizes the research status of aptamers in disease diagnosis and treatment, especially focusing on the application of aptamers in liver diseases, showing the crucial significance of aptamers in the diagnosis and treatment of liver diseases, and the use of Discovery Studio software to find the binding target and sequence of aptamers, and explore their possible interaction sites.

A Systematic Review of Economic Studies Evaluating Ophthalmic Drugs: An Analysis of the Health-state Utilities

PURPOSE

To characterize the techniques used to derive health-state utilities (HSU) in the cost-utility studies (CUS) of ophthalmic drugs.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted in Pubmed/Embase until October 2019. CUS evaluating ophthalmic drugs were included. Therapeutic area, technique to derive HSU and sources of HSU were extracted. It was assessed if the HSU and the other parameters of CUS were collected from the same population. The techniques to derive HSU used in the CUS were compared to the techniques recommended by the country-specific economic evaluation guidelines.

RESULTS

Seventy CUS were included. Forty-three (61.4%) used direct techniques to derive HSU, 19 (27.1%) used indirect, 1 (1.4%) used direct and indirect and the remaining (n = 7; 10.0%) used other or unknown techniques. Twelve (17.1%) CUS collected the HSU and the other parameters from the same population: nine (12.9%) retrieved utility data from experimental studies, two (2.9%) from observational and one (1.4%) from other sources. Forty-eight (68.6%) CUS collected the HSU and the other parameters from different populations: eight (11.4%) retrieved utility data from experimental studies, 33 (47.1%) from observational, one (1.4%) from both experimental and observational and six (8.6%) from other sources. It was not possible to identify the population from whom data were obtained in 10 (14.3%) CUS. Eleven (15.7%) CUS followed the recommendations of guidelines, 21 (30.0%) did not follow and for 38 (54.3%), it was not possible to assess.

CONCLUSION

Choosing different techniques to derive HSU may result in different results, which can preclude the comparison between cost-utility studies.

Cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab and aflibercept to treat diabetic macular edema from a US perspective: analysis of 2-year Protocol T data

Aims: Protocol T (NCT01627249) was a head-to-head study conducted by the Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network that compared intravitreal aflibercept, bevacizumab, and ranibizumab for the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME). A cost-effectiveness analysis accompanying the 1-year data of Protocol T revealed that aflibercept was not cost-effective vs ranibizumab for all patients, but could have been cost-effective in certain patient sub-groups if the 1-year results were extrapolated out to 10 years. The present study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of US Food and Drug Administration-approved anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents (ranibizumab, aflibercept) for treatment of DME using the 2-year data from Protocol T.Methods: Costs of aflibercept 2.0 mg or ranibizumab 0.3 mg, visual acuity (VA)-related medical costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were simulated for eight VA health states. Treatment, adverse event management, and VA-related healthcare resource costs (2016 US dollars) were based on Medicare reimbursement and published literature. VA-related health utilities were determined using a published algorithm. Patients were stratified by baseline VA: 20/40 or better; 20/50 or worse.Results: Total 2-year costs were higher, and QALYs similar, for aflibercept vs ranibizumab in the full cohort ($44,423 vs $34,529; 1.476 vs 1.466), 20/40 or better VA sub-group ($40,854 vs $31,897; 1.517 vs 1.519), and 20/50 or worse VA sub-group ($48,214 vs $37,246; 1.433 vs 1.412), respectively. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in the full cohort and 20/50 or worse VA sub-group were $986,159/QALY and $523,377/QALY, respectively. These decreased to $711,301 and $246,978 when analyses were extrapolated to 10 years.Limitations: Key potential limitations include the fact that VA was the only QALY parameter analyzed and the uncertainty surrounding the role of better- and worse-seeing eye VA in overall functional impairment.Conclusions: This analysis suggests that aflibercept is not cost-effective vs ranibizumab for patients with DME, regardless of baseline vision.

Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor for neovascular age-related macular degeneration

BACKGROUND

Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is the most common cause of uncorrectable severe vision loss in people aged 55 years and older in the developed world. Choroidal neovascularization (CNV) secondary to AMD accounts for most cases of AMD-related severe vision loss. Intravitreous injection of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents aims to block the growth of abnormal blood vessels in the eye to prevent vision loss and, in some instances, to improve vision.

OBJECTIVES

• To investigate ocular and systemic effects of, and quality of life associated with, intravitreous injection of three anti-VEGF agents (pegaptanib, ranibizumab, and bevacizumab) versus no anti-VEGF treatment for patients with neovascular AMD• To compare the relative effects of one of these anti-VEGF agents versus another when administered in comparable dosages and regimens SEARCH METHODS: To identify eligible studies for this review, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register (searched January 31, 2018); MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to January 31, 2018); Embase Ovid (1947 to January 31, 2018); the Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (1982 to January 31, 2018); the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trials Number (ISRCTN) Registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch - searched January 31, 2018); ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov - searched November 28, 2018); and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en - searched January 31, 2018). We did not impose any date or language restrictions in electronic searches for trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated pegaptanib, ranibizumab, or bevacizumab versus each other or versus a control treatment (e.g. sham treatment, photodynamic therapy), in which participants were followed for at least one year.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened records, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. We contacted trial authors for additional data. We compared outcomes using risk ratios (RRs) or mean differences (MDs). We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 16 RCTs that had enrolled a total of 6347 participants with neovascular AMD (the number of participants per trial ranged from 23 to 1208) and identified one potentially relevant ongoing trial. Six trials compared anti-VEGF treatment (pegaptanib, ranibizumab, or bevacizumab) versus control, and 10 trials compared bevacizumab versus ranibizumab. Pharmaceutical companies conducted or sponsored four trials but funded none of the studies that evaluated bevacizumab. Researchers conducted these trials at various centers across five continents (North and South America, Europe, Asia, and Australia). The overall certainty of the evidence was moderate to high, and most trials had an overall low risk of bias. All but one trial had been registered prospectively.When compared with those who received control treatment, more participants who received intravitreous injection of any of the three anti-VEGF agents had gained 15 letters or more of visual acuity (risk ratio [RR] 4.19, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.32 to 7.55; moderate-certainty evidence), had lost fewer than 15 letters of visual acuity (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.55; high-certainty evidence), and showed mean improvement in visual acuity (mean difference 6.7 letters, 95% CI 4.4 to 9.0 in one pegaptanib trial; mean difference 17.8 letters, 95% CI 16.0 to 19.7 in three ranibizumab trials; moderate-certainty evidence) after one year of follow-up. Participants treated with anti-VEGF agents showed improvement in morphologic outcomes (e.g. size of CNV, central retinal thickness) compared with participants not treated with anti-VEGF agents (moderate-certainty evidence). No trial directly compared pegaptanib versus another anti-VEGF agent and followed participants for one year; however, when compared with control treatments, ranibizumab and bevacizumab each yielded larger improvements in visual acuity outcomes than pegaptanib.Visual acuity outcomes after bevacizumab and ranibizumab were similar when the same RCTs compared the same regimens with respect to gain of 15 or more letters of visual acuity (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.12; high-certainty evidence) and loss of fewer than 15 letters of visual acuity (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.02; high-certainty evidence); results showed similar mean improvement in visual acuity (mean difference [MD] -0.5 letters, 95% CI -1.5 to 0.5; high-certainty evidence) after one year of follow-up, despite the substantially lower cost of bevacizumab compared with ranibizumab. Reduction in central retinal thickness was less among bevacizumab-treated participants than among ranibizumab-treated participants after one year (MD -11.6 μm, 95% CI -21.6 to -1.7; high-certainty evidence); however, this difference is within the range of measurement error, and we did not interpret it to be clinically meaningful.Ocular inflammation and increased intraocular pressure (IOP) after intravitreal injection were the most frequently reported serious ocular adverse events. Researchers reported endophthalmitis in less than 1% of anti-VEGF-treated participants and in no cases among control groups. The occurrence of serious systemic adverse events was comparable across anti-VEGF-treated groups and control groups; however, the numbers of events and trial participants may have been insufficient to show a meaningful difference between groups (evidence of low- to moderate-certainty). Investigators rarely measured and reported data on visual function, quality of life, or economic outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Results of this review show the effectiveness of anti-VEGF agents (pegaptanib, ranibizumab, and bevacizumab) in terms of maintaining visual acuity; studies show that ranibizumab and bevacizumab improved visual acuity in some eyes that received these agents and were equally effective. Available information on the adverse effects of each medication does not suggest a higher incidence of potentially vision-threatening complications with intravitreous injection of anti-VEGF agents compared with control interventions; however, clinical trial sample sizes were not sufficient to estimate differences in rare safety outcomes. Future Cochrane Reviews should incorporate research evaluating variable dosing regimens of anti-VEGF agents, effects of long-term use, use of combination therapies (e.g. anti-VEGF treatment plus photodynamic therapy), and other methods of delivering these agents.

The Burden of Macular Diseases in Central and Eastern Europe-Implications for Healthcare Systems

BACKGROUND

Despite the significant impact of retinal diseases such as wet age-related macular degeneration (wAMD) and diabetic macular edema (DME), there is a limited understanding of how these conditions are managed in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE).

OBJECTIVES

To provide a comprehensive overview of the clinical and economic burden of wAMD and DME in CEE and the status quo associated with their management.

METHODS

A narrative literature review was undertaken to identify existing data on wAMD and DME, including epidemiology, economic burden, clinical guidelines, and available and reimbursed treatments. Data were collected from relevant sources such as PubMed, ophthalmology associations, national statistical offices, and government agency websites; practical viewpoints were provided by local ophthalmologists and healthcare economics experts in CEE.

RESULTS

Epidemiological data on wAMD and DME are limited in CEE, and intercountry comparison is difficult because of differences in data collection methodologies. There are effective treatment options for wAMD and DME, and international guidelines advocate the use of intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections as first-line therapy. Local expert organizations broadly support these recommendations; nevertheless, no clinical practice guidelines exist on the treatment of wAMD and DME in CEE. Access to and reimbursement of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents vary significantly in the region and, as a result, many patients remain untreated or inadequately treated.

CONCLUSIONS

There is an urgent need for the creation of a wAMD/DME treatment program in CEE to ensure that patients have timely access to the most appropriate treatments.

A systematic review on the quality, validity and usefulness of current cost-effectiveness studies for treatments of neovascular age-related macular degeneration

PURPOSE

Ophthalmologists increasingly depend on new drugs to advance their treatment options. These options are limited by restraints on reimbursements for new and expensive drugs. These restraints are put in place through health policy decisions based on cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA). Cost-effectiveness analyses need to be valid and of good quality to support correct decisions to create new treatment opportunities. In this study, we report the quality, validity and usefulness of CEAs for therapies for nAMD.

METHODS

A systematic review in PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane was performed to include CEAs. Quality and validity assessment was based on current general quality criteria and on elements that are specific to the field of ophthalmology.

RESULTS

Forty-eight CEAs were included in the review. Forty-four CEAs did not meet four basic model quality and validity criteria specific to CEAs in the field of ophthalmology (both eyes analysed instead of one; a time horizon extending beyond 4 years; extrapolating VA and treatment intervals beyond trial data realistically; and including the costs of low-vision). Four CEAs aligned with the quality and validity criteria. In two of these CEAs bevacizumab as-needed (PRN) was more cost-effective than bevacizumab monthly; aflibercept (VIEW); or ranibizumab monthly or PRN. In two CEAs, ranibizumab (PRN or treat and extent) was dominant over aflibercept. In two other CEAs, aflibercept was either more cost-effective or dominant over ranibizumab monthly or PRN.

CONCLUSION

Two of the CEAs of sufficient quality and validity show that bevacizumab PRN is the most cost-effective treatment. Comparing ranibizumab and aflibercept, either treatment can be more cost-effective depending on the assumptions used for drug prices and treatment frequencies. The majority of the published CEAs are of insufficient quality and validity. They wrongly inform decision-makers at the cost of opportunities for ophthalmologists to treat patients. As such, they may negatively influence overall patient outcomes and societal costs. For future ophthalmic treatments, CEAs need to be improved and only published when they are of sufficient quality and validity.

Collaborative care of non-urgent macular disease: a study of inter-optometric referrals

Purpose

Diseases involving the macula and posterior pole are leading causes of visual impairment and blindness worldwide and may require prompt ophthalmological care. However, access to eye‐care and timely patient management may be limited due to inefficient and inappropriate referrals between primary eye‐care providers and ophthalmology. Optometrists with a special interest in macular disease may be useful as a community aid to better stratify and recommend best‐practice management plans for suitable patients. This study assesses such a notion by appraising the optometric referral patterns of patients with suspected macular disease to an intermediate‐tier optometric imaging clinic.

Methods

We performed a retrospective review of patient records and referrals using patients examined at Centre for Eye Health (CFEH) for an initial or follow up macular assessment between the 1/7/2013 and 30/6/2014 (n = 291). The following data were analysed: patient demographic characteristics, primary reason for referral, diagnosed/suspected condition, CFEH diagnosis and recommended management plan.

Results

The number of referrals stipulating a diagnosis, confirmed after evaluation at CFEH was 121 of 291 (42%). After evaluation at CFEH, the number of cases without a specific diagnosis was approximately halved (reduced from 47% to 23%), while the number of cases with no apparent defect or normal aging changes rose from 1% to 15%. Overall diagnostic congruency for specified macular conditions was high (58–94%); cases were seldom (30/291, 10%) found to have a completely different macular condition. 244 of 291 (84%) patients seen at CFEH were recommended ongoing optometric care: either with the referring optometrist or through recall to CFEH. Referral to an ophthalmologist was recommended in 47 instances (16%).

Conclusions

More widespread adoption of intermediate‐tier optometric eye‐care referral pathways in macular disease (following opportunistic primary care screening) has the potential to reduce the number of cases with non‐specific diagnoses and to increase those with a diagnosis of normal aging changes or no apparent disease. The majority of cases seen under this intermediate‐tier model required ongoing optometric care only and did not require face‐to‐face consultation with an ophthalmologist.

Cost-effectiveness of intravitreal aflibercept versus other treatments for wet age-related macular degeneration in Japan

OBJECTIVE

This analysis estimated the cost-effectiveness of intravitreal aflibercept injection(s) (IAI) for wet age-related macular degeneration (wAMD) compared with other treatments in Japan.

METHODS

This was a cost-utility analysis based on published data. A state-transition cohort model was constructed with six health states based on best-corrected visual acuity in the better-seeing eye. The cycle time was 4 weeks, and the time horizon was 12 years. The model compared IAI 2 mg every 8 weeks (2q8) for 2 years after three initial monthly injections, ranibizumab as needed, ranibizumab 0.5 mg every 4 weeks (0.5q4), pegaptanib sodium 0.3 mg every 6 weeks, verteporfin photodynamic therapy (PDT), and best supportive care, assumed to include medical management and monitoring, but no active therapy. Costs (expressed as Japanese yen [JPY]) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained were estimated for each treatment and discounted at 2.0%. Input data were obtained from clinical studies, the Japanese drug tariff and social insurance reimbursement schedule, and expert opinion. The analysis was conducted from the societal perspective, including medical costs as well as costs of blindness.

RESULTS

IAI 2q8 was dominant (i.e. more effective in terms of QALYs and less costly) to all other comparators (ranibizumab as needed, ranibizumab 0.5q4, pegaptanib sodium, PDT, and best supportive care), as shown by the incremental cost-utility ratio (i.e. cost per QALY gained).

LIMITATIONS

The strengths of the analysis include the wide range of comparators evaluated and the use of Japanese-specific utility data. The limitations include the use of one eye, inclusion of published data up to 2 years only, and assumptions on disease course over 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

IAI 2q8 was more effective in terms of QALYs and less costly compared with other treatments for wAMD in Japan.

Health State Utility Values for Age-Related Macular Degeneration: Review and Advice

Health state utility values are a major source of uncertainty in economic evaluations of interventions for age-related macular degeneration (AMD). This review identifies and critiques published utility values and methods for eliciting de novo utility values in AMD. We describe how utility values have been used in healthcare decision making and provide guidance on the choice of utility values for future economic evaluations for AMD. Literature was searched using PubMed, and health technology assessments (HTA) were searched using HTA agency websites to identify articles reporting utility values or approaches to derive utility values in AMD and articles applying utilities for use in healthcare decision making relating to treatments for AMD. A total of 70 studies qualified for data extraction, 22 of which were classified as containing utility values and/or elicitation methods, and 48 were classified as using utility values in decision making. A large number of studies have elicited utility values for AMD, although those applied to decision making have focused on a few of these. There is an appreciation of the challenges in the measurement and valuation of health states, with recent studies addressing challenges such as the insensitivity of generic health-related quality of life (HRQoL) questionnaires and utility in the worse-seeing eye. We would encourage careful consideration when choosing utility values in decision making and an explicit critique of their applicability to the decision problem.

Different Strategies for the Treatment of Age-Related Macular Degeneration in China: An Economic Evaluation

Purpose. To assess the cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab compared to ranibizumab, verteporfin photodynamic therapy (PDT), and usual care for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration (AMD) in China. Methods. A Markov model was developed according to patient visual acuity (VA) in the better-seeing eye (Snellen scale). Four cohorts of patients were treated with one of the following therapies: bevacizumab, ranibizumab, PDT, or usual care. Clinical data related to treatments were obtained from published randomized clinical trials. Direct medical costs and resource utilization in the Chinese health care setting were taken into account. Health and economic outcomes were evaluated over a lifetime horizon. Sensitivity analyses were performed. Results. Treatment with ranibizumab provided the greatest gains in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The cost per marginal QALY gained with bevacizumab over usual care was $1,258, $3,803, and $2,066 for the predominantly classic, minimally classic, and occult lesions, respectively. One-way sensitivity analysis showed considerably influential factors, such as utility values and effectiveness data. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that, compared to usual care, PDT and ranibizumab most cases would be cost-effective in the bevacizumab arm at a threshold of $7,480/QALY. Conclusion. Bevacizumab can be a cost-effective option for the treatment of AMD in the Chinese setting.

Cost-Effectiveness Models in Age-Related Macular Degeneration: Issues and Challenges

Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a common ophthalmic condition that can have few symptoms in its early stage but can progress to major visual impairment. While there are no treatments for early-stage AMD, there are multiple modalities of treatment for advanced disease. Given the increasing prevalence of the disease, there are dozens of analyses of cost effectiveness of AMD treatments, but methods and approaches vary broadly. The goal of this review was to identify, characterize, and critique published models in AMD and provide guidance for their interpretation. After a literature review was performed to identify studies, and exclusion criteria applied to limit the review to studies comparing treatments for AMD, we compared methods across the 36 studies meeting the review criteria. To some extent, variation was related to targeting different audiences or acknowledging the most appropriate population for a given treatment. However, the review identified potential areas of uncertainty and difficulty in interpretation, particularly regarding duration of observation periods and the importance of visual acuity as an endpoint or a proxy for patient-reported utilities. We urge thoughtful consideration of these study characteristics when comparing results.

Current barriers to treatment for wet age-related macular degeneration (wAMD): findings from the wAMD patient and caregiver survey

Purpose

A cross-sectional survey to evaluate the current management of wet age-related macular degeneration (wAMD) and to identify barriers to treatment from a patient and caregiver perspective.

Methods

An ophthalmologist-devised questionnaire was given to a global cohort of patients who were receiving (or had previously received) antivascular endothelial growth factor injections and to caregivers (paid and unpaid) to evaluate the impact of wAMD on their lives.

Results

Responders included 910 patients and 890 caregivers; wAMD was diagnosed in both eyes in 45% of patients, and 64% had been receiving injections for > 1 year. Many caregivers were a child/grandchild (47%) or partner (23%) of the patient; only 7% were professional caregivers. Most (73%) patients visited a health care professional within 1 month of experiencing vision changes and 54% began treatment immediately. Most patients and caregivers reported a number of obstacles in managing wAMD, including the treatment itself (35% and 39%, respectively). Sixteen percent of patients also missed a clinic visit.

Conclusion

Most patients seek medical assistance promptly for a change in vision; however, about a quarter of them do not. This highlights a lack of awareness surrounding eye health and the impact of a delayed diagnosis. Most patients and caregivers identified a number of obstacles in managing wAMD.

Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor for neovascular age-related macular degeneration

BACKGROUND

Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is the most common cause of uncorrectable severe vision loss in people aged 55 years and older in the developed world. Choroidal neovascularization (CNV) secondary to neovascular AMD accounts for most AMD-related severe vision loss. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents, injected intravitreally, aim to block the growth of abnormal blood vessels in the eye to prevent vision loss and, in some instances, improve vision.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate: (1) the ocular and systemic effects of, and quality of life associated with, intravitreally injected anti-VEGF agents (pegaptanib, ranibizumab, and bevacizumab) for the treatment of neovascular AMD compared with no anti-VEGF treatment; and (2) the relative effects of one anti-VEGF agent compared with another when administered in comparable dosages and regimens.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (2014, Issue 3), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to March 2014), EMBASE (January 1980 to March 2014), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (January 1982 to March 2014), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We used no date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 27 March 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated pegaptanib, ranibizumab, or bevacizumab versus each other or a control treatment (e.g., sham treatment or photodynamic therapy). All trials followed participants for at least one year.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened records, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. We contacted trial authors for additional data. We analyzed outcomes as risk ratios (RRs) or mean differences (MDs). We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 12 RCTs including a total of 5496 participants with neovascular AMD (the number of participants per trial ranged from 28 to 1208). One trial compared pegaptanib, three trials ranibizumab, and two trials bevacizumab versus controls; six trials compared bevacizumab with ranibizumab. Four trials were conducted by pharmaceutical companies; none of the eight studies which evaluated bevacizumab were funded by pharmaceutical companies. The trials were conducted at various centers across five continents (North and South America, Europe, Asia and Australia). The overall quality of the evidence was very good, with most trials having an overall low risk of bias.When compared with control treatments, participants who received any of the three anti-VEGF agents were more likely to have gained 15 letters or more of visual acuity, lost fewer than 15 letters of visual acuity, and had vision 20/200 or better after one year of follow up. Visual acuity outcomes after bevacizumab and ranibizumab were similar when the same regimens were compared in the same RCTs, despite the substantially lower cost for bevacizumab compared with ranibizumab. No trial directly compared pegaptanib with other anti-VEGF agents; however, when compared with controls, ranibizumab or bevacizumab yielded larger improvements in visual acuity outcomes than pegaptanib.Participants treated with anti-VEGFs showed improvements in morphologic outcomes (e.g., size of CNV or central retinal thickness) compared with participants not treated with anti-VEGF agents. There was less reduction in central retinal thickness among bevacizumab-treated participants than among ranibizumab-treated participants after one year (MD -13.97 μm; 95% confidence interval (CI) -26.52 to -1.41); however, this difference is within the range of measurement error and we did not interpret it as being clinically meaningful.Ocular inflammation and increased intraocular pressure after intravitreal injection were the most frequently reported serious ocular adverse events. Endophthalmitis was reported in fewer than 1% of anti-VEGF treated participants; no cases were reported in control groups. The occurrence of serious systemic adverse events was comparable across anti-VEGF-treated groups and control groups; however, the numbers of events and trial participants may have been insufficient to detect a meaningful difference between groups. Data for visual function, quality of life, and economic outcomes were sparsely measured and reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results of this review indicate the effectiveness of anti-VEGF agents (pegaptanib, ranibizumab, and bevacizumab) in terms of maintaining visual acuity; ranibizumab and bevacizumab were also shown to improve visual acuity. The information available on the adverse effects of each medication do not suggest a higher incidence of potentially vision-threatening complications with intravitreal injection compared with control interventions; however, clinical trial sample sizes may not have been sufficient to detect rare safety outcomes. Research evaluating variable dosing regimens with anti-VEGF agents, effects of long-term use, combination therapies (e.g., anti-VEGF treatment plus photodynamic therapy), and other methods of delivering the agents should be incorporated into future Cochrane reviews.

Cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab and ranibizumab for newly diagnosed neovascular macular degeneration

PURPOSE

We sought to determine the most cost-effective treatment for patients with newly diagnosed neovascular macular degeneration: monthly or as-needed bevacizumab injections, or monthly or as-needed ranibizumab injections.

DESIGN

Cost-effectiveness analysis.

PARTICIPANTS

Hypothetical cohort of 80-year-old patients with newly diagnosed neovascular macular degeneration.

METHODS

Using a mathematical model with a 20-year time horizon, we compared the incremental cost-effectiveness of treating a hypothetical cohort of 80-year-old patients with newly diagnosed neovascular macular degeneration using monthly bevacizumab, as-needed bevacizumab, monthly ranibizumab, or as-needed ranibizumab. Data came from the Comparison of Age-related macular degeneration Treatment Trial (CATT), the Medicare Fee Schedule, and the medical literature.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental costs per QALY gained.

RESULTS

Compared with as-needed bevacizumab, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of monthly bevacizumab is $24,2 357/QALY. Monthly ranibizumab gains an additional 0.02 QALYs versus monthly bevacizumab at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of >$10 million/QALY. As-needed ranibizumab was dominated by monthly bevacizumab, meaning it was more costly and less effective. In sensitivity analyses assuming a willingness to pay of $100,000/QALY, the annual risk of serious vascular events would have to be ≥2.5 times higher with bevacizumab than that observed in the CATT trial for as-needed ranibizumab to have an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of <$100,000/QALY. In another sensitivity analysis, even if every patient receiving bevacizumab experienced declining vision by 1 category (e.g., from 20/25-20/40 to 20/50-20/80) after 2 years but every patient receiving ranibizumab retained their vision level, as-needed ranibizumab would have an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $97,340/QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

Even after considering the potential for differences in risks of serious adverse events and therapeutic effectiveness, bevacizumab confers considerably greater value than ranibizumab for the treatment of neovascular macular degeneration.

Cost and effectiveness of therapy for wet age-related macular degeneration in routine clinical practice

PURPOSE

Evaluation of the cost and effectiveness of therapy for patients with the wet form of age-related macular degeneration (AMD) in routine clinical practice.

METHODS

A retrospective multicentre evaluation of changes in the best-corrected visual acuity in applied kinds of therapy and a comparison with the cost of individual therapeutic procedures.

RESULTS

An overall total of 788 eyes of 763 patients with an average age of 73.2 ± 8.6 years was evaluated for a 1-year minimum period. In the ranibizumab and pegaptanib therapy groups, a reduction of 1.3 letters (p = 0.303) and 1.4 letters (p = 0.197) was found, respectively. In the group of photodynamic therapy (PDT) with verteporfin, a reduction of 5.2 letters was achieved (p < 0.001). Under the conditions of routine practice in the Czech Republic, the annual cost is highest (EUR 5,467.63/patient) in patients with pegaptanib therapy. The annual cost in patients with ranibizumab therapy is lower by EUR 1,220.16. The cost is nearly half (EUR 2,783.65) in the group treated with PDT with verteporfin.

CONCLUSION

An initiation of AMD therapy by ranibizumab is cost-effective as compared to pegaptanib. Both ranibizumab and pegaptanib are significantly more efficient as compared to PDT with verteporfin. Therapy with ranibizumab and pegaptanib, as compared to PDT with verteporfin, prevents the loss of 1 line of vision on the ETDRS chart for EUR 1,225.98 and 2,286.18, respectively.

Anti vascular endothelial growth factor sequential therapy for neovascular age-related macular degeneration: is this the new deal?

OBJECTIVE

To review clinical data on the sequential use of the non-selective vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors (ranibizumab and bevacizumab) and the selective VEGF inhibitor (pegaptanib) in the treatment of neovascular age related macular degeneration (n-AMD).

METHODS

This is a selective review of the literature based on a PubMed search using the terms 'age-related macular degeneration', 'selective anti-VEGF', 'non-selective anti-VEGF' and 'combination therapy' from 2000 to date in the English language. Studies on the management of n-AMD reporting adherence, patient-reported outcomes, costs, side effects, resource use and cost effectiveness were also included.

RESULTS

The trial data suggest that pan-VEGF inhibition provides improved treatment outcomes in patients with n-AMD with selective anti-VEGF agents offering better tolerability on long-term treatment. A pilot trial and a large-scale, multicentre study confirmed the long-term efficacy of a selective VEGF inhibitor when used as maintenance therapy. Importantly, there is evidence that selective VEGF inhibition also reduces the risks associated with pan-VEGF blockade in patients with n-AMD.

DISCUSSION

Anti-VEGF agents play a principal role in the management of n-AMD. The most potent are the pan-VEGF agents although there is some discussion regarding their long-term tolerability. The sequential use of non-selective VEGF inhibitors as booster therapy with a selective VEGF inhibitor as maintenance therapy seems to offer a promising safety/efficacy profile, as well as improved cost/effectiveness.

Epidemiology of major eye diseases leading to blindness in Europe: a literature review

The objective of this work was to study the epidemiology of major eye diseases leading to blindness in Europe through a systematic literature review. The literature search was performed using the Medline database (PubMed), with MeSH and free text search terms. Inclusion criteria for the studies were: (a) performed on a healthy population of Caucasian origin aged between 50 and 75 years; (b) diagnosed by ophthalmological examination in accordance with the International Classification of Diseases 10; (c) contained a detailed description of the sampling and diagnostic procedures and data resources; (d) sample size>500, and (e) published between 1990 and 2008. The results of 57 studies on the prevalence and incidence of age-related macular degeneration, diabetic retinopathy and glaucoma are reported, providing an up-to-date and comprehensive overview of these diseases in Europe from an epidemiological perspective.

Cost effectiveness of treatments for wet age-related macular degeneration

Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a leading cause of blindness in people aged ≥50 years. Wet AMD in particular has a major impact on patient quality of life and imposes substantial burdens on healthcare systems. This systematic review examined the cost-effectiveness data for current therapeutic options for wet AMD. PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched for all articles reporting original cost-effectiveness analyses of wet AMD treatments. The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and Cochrane Library databases were searched for all wet AMD health technology assessments (HTAs). Overall, 44 publications were evaluated in full and included in this review. A broad range of cost-effectiveness analyses were identified for the most commonly used therapies for wet AMD (pegaptanib, ranibizumab and photodynamic therapy [PDT] with verteporfin). Three studies evaluated the cost effectiveness of bevacizumab in wet AMD. A small number of analyses of other treatments, such as laser photocoagulation and antioxidant vitamins, were also found. Ranibizumab was consistently shown to be cost effective for wet AMD in comparison with all the approved wet AMD therapies (four of the five studies identified showed ranibizumab was cost effective vs usual care, PDT or pegaptanib); however, there was considerable variation in the methodology for cost-effectiveness modelling between studies. Findings from the HTAs supported those from the PubMed and EMBASE searches; of the seven HTAs that included ranibizumab, six (including HTAs for Australia, Canada and the UK) concluded that ranibizumab was cost effective for the treatment of wet AMD; most compared ranibizumab with PDT and/or pegaptanib. By contrast, HTAs at best generally recommended pegaptanib or PDT for restricted use in subsets of patients with wet AMD. In the literature analyses, pegaptanib was found to be cost effective versus usual/best supportive care (including PDT) or no treatment in one of five studies; the other four studies found pegaptanib was of borderline cost effectiveness depending on the stage of disease and time horizon. PDT was shown to be cost effective versus usual/best supportive care or no treatment in five of nine studies; two studies showed that PDT was of borderline cost effectiveness depending on baseline visual acuity, and two showed that PDT was not cost effective. We identified no robust studies that properly evaluated the cost effectiveness of bevacizumab in wet AMD.

Pharmacologic management of neovascular age-related macular degeneration: systematic review of economic evidence and primary economic evaluation

OBJECTIVE

To examine the economic implications for the Canadian health system of pharmacologic treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD).

DESIGN

Systematic review of economic literature and a primary economic evaluation.

PARTICIPANTS

Economic literature search identified 392 potentially relevant articles, 12 of which were included for final review.

METHODS

Studies were included if they met the following criteria: (i) provision of a summary measure of the trade-off between costs and consequences; (ii) participants of 40 years and older with neovascular AMD; (iii) interventions and comparators: comparison of photodynamic therapy using verteporfin (V-PDT), pegaptanib, bevacizumab, ranibizumab, anecortave acetate, intravitreal triamcinolone, placebo, or clinically relevant combinations; and (iv) outcome reported as an incremental measure of the implication of moving from the comparator to the intervention. The following databases were searched through the OVID interface: MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS Previews, CINAHL, PubMed, Health Economic Evaluations Database (HEED), and the Cochrane Library. For the economic evaluation, we took a decision analytic approach and modeled a cost-utility analysis, conducting it as a microsimulation of a Markov model.

RESULTS

In general, V-PDT is more cost effective than conventional macular laser, and pegaptanib is likely more cost effective than V-PDT. The primary economic analysis revealed ranibizumab to be effective but at an unacceptably high cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY)(>$50,000 per QALY).

CONCLUSIONS

Although ranibizumab is effective for wet AMD, its cost is unacceptably high based on cost-utility theory.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of three treatments for age-related macular degeneration

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of pegaptanib sodium and ranibizumab injections compared with photodynamic therapy (PDT) with verteporfin for the treatment of choroidal neovascularization secondary to age-related macular degeneration.

METHODS

The analyses were performed using outcomes data from the pivotal trials for each treatment and the medicare reimbursable costs for each treatment and associated medical procedures. A multistate transition model with 3-month cycles was created to compare incremental medical costs associated with pegaptanib or ranibizumab versus PDT for patients with starting vision of 20/40, 20/80, and 20/200 Snellen equivalent.

RESULTS

Two-year medical treatment costs ranged from $3,100 to $54,100 depending on treatment and lesion type. Photodynamic therapy was less costly and more effective than pegaptanib for predominantly classic and minimally classic lesions. Ranibizumab was not only more effective but also more costly than PDT for all lesion types.

CONCLUSION

Compared with PDT, pegaptanib is inferior in both cost and effectiveness, whereas ranibizumab has a greater effectiveness. Because ranibizumab does not meet 1 of the common thresholds for being considered cost effective (<$50,000 per quality-adjusted life year), there is rationale to seek other therapies that are more cost effective.