Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of treatment of diabetic macular edema.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Macular edema is the most common cause of vision loss among patients with diabetes.

Objective

To determine the cost-effectiveness of different treatments of diabetic macular edema (DME).

Design

Markov model.

Data sources

Published literature and expert opinion.

Target population

Patients with clinically significant DME.

Time horizon

Lifetime.

Perspective

Societal.

Intervention

Laser treatment, intraocular injections of triamcinolone or a vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitor, or a combination of both.

Outcome measures

Discounted costs, gains in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

Results of base-case analysis

All treatments except laser monotherapy substantially reduced costs, and all treatments except triamcinolone monotherapy increased QALYs. Laser treatment plus a VEGF inhibitor achieved the greatest benefit, gaining 0.56 QALYs at a cost of $6975 for an ICER of $12 410 per QALY compared with laser treatment plus triamcinolone. Monotherapy with a VEGF inhibitor achieved similar outcomes to combination therapy with laser treatment plus a VEGF inhibitor. Laser monotherapy and triamcinolone monotherapy were less effective and more costly than combination therapy.

Results of sensitivity analysis

VEGF inhibitor monotherapy was sometimes preferred over laser treatment plus a VEGF inhibitor, depending on the reduction in quality of life with loss of visual acuity. When the VEGF inhibitor bevacizumab was as effective as ranibizumab, it was preferable because of its lower cost.

Limitation

Long-term outcome data for treated and untreated diseases are limited.

Conclusion

The most effective treatment of DME is VEGF inhibitor injections with or without laser treatment. This therapy compares favorably with cost-effective interventions for other conditions.

Primary funding source

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

SUBMITTER: Pershing S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4020006 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of treatment of diabetic macular edema.

Pershing Suzann S Enns Eva A EA Matesic Brian B Owens Douglas K DK Goldhaber-Fiebert Jeremy D JD

Annals of internal medicine 20140101 1

<h4>Background</h4>Macular edema is the most common cause of vision loss among patients with diabetes.<h4>Objective</h4>To determine the cost-effectiveness of different treatments of diabetic macular edema (DME).<h4>Design</h4>Markov model.<h4>Data sources</h4>Published literature and expert opinion.<h4>Target population</h4>Patients with clinically significant DME.<h4>Time horizon</h4>Lifetime.<h4>Perspective</h4>Societal.<h4>Intervention</h4>Laser treatment, intraocular injections of triamcino ...[more]

PMID: 24573663

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveAnti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapies have revolutionized the treatment of clinically significant diabetic macular edema (CSDME); yet these agents are expensive, and whether they are cost-effective is unclear. The purpose of this study is to determine the most cost-effective treatment option for patients with newly diagnosed CSDME: focal laser photocoagulation alone (L), focal laser plus intravitreal ranibizumab (L+R), focal laser plus intravitreal bevacizumab (L+B), or focal laser plus intravitreal triamcinolone (L+T) injections.DesignCost-effectiveness analysis.ParticipantsHypothetical cohort of 57-year-old patients with newly diagnosed CSDME.MethodsBy using a Markov model with a 25-year time horizon, we compared the incremental cost-effectiveness of treating patients with newly diagnosed CSDME using L, L+R, L+B, or L+T. Data came from the DRCRnet randomized controlled trial, the Medicare fee schedule, and the medical literature.Main outcome measuresCosts, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental costs per QALY gained.ResultsCompared with L, the incremental cost-effectiveness of L+R and L+B was $89903/QALY and $11138/QALY, respectively. L+T was dominated by L. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that, at a willingness to pay (WTP) of $50000/QALY, L was approximately 70% likely to be the preferred therapy over L+R and L+T. However, at a WTP of $100000/QALY, more than 90% of the time, L+R therapy was the preferred therapy compared with L and L+T. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, L+B was found to be the preferred therapy over L and L+T for any WTP value >$10000/QALY. Sensitivity analyses revealed that the annual risk of cerebrovascular accident would have to be at least 1.5% higher with L+B than with L+R for L+R to be the preferred treatment. In another sensitivity analysis, if patients require <8 injections per year over the remainder of the 25-year time horizon, L+B would cost <$100000/QALY, whereas L+R would be cost-effective at a WTP of $100000/QALY if patients require fewer than 0.45 injections per year after year 2.ConclusionsWith bevacizumab and ranibizumab assumed to have equivalent effectiveness and similar safety profiles when used in the management of CSDME, bevacizumab therapy confers the greatest value among the different treatment options for CSDME.Financial disclosure(s)The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.

Project description:ImportanceAnti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) medicines have revolutionized diabetic macular edema (DME) treatment. A recent randomized clinical trial comparing anti-VEGF agents for patients with decreased vision from DME found that at 1 year aflibercept (2.0 mg) achieved better visual outcomes than repackaged (compounded) bevacizumab (1.25 mg) or ranibizumab (0.3 mg); the worse the starting vision, the greater the treatment benefit with aflibercept. However, aflibercept and ranibizumab, respectively, are approximately 31 and 20 times more expensive than bevacizumab.ObjectiveTo examine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of aflibercept, bevacizumab, and ranibizumab for the treatment of DME.Design, setting, and participantsPost hoc analysis of efficacy, safety, and resource utilization data at 1-year follow-up from the Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network Comparative Effectiveness Trial. Patients were enrolled from August 22, 2012, through August 28, 2013, and analysis was performed from August 21, 2014, through November 7, 2015.Main outcomes and measuresThe ICERs for all trial participants and subgroups with baseline vision of approximate Snellen equivalent 20/32 to 20/40 (better vision) and baseline vision of approximate Snellen equivalent 20/50 or worse (worse vision). One-year trial data were used to calculate cost-effectiveness for 1 year for the 3 anti-VEGF agents; mathematical modeling was then used to project 10-year cost-effectiveness results.ResultsThe study included 624 participants (mean [SD] age, 60.6 [10.5] years; 45.7% female; 65.5% white), 209 in the aflibercept group, 207 in the bevacizumab group, and 208 in the ranibizumab group. For all participants, during 1 year, the ICERs of aflibercept and ranibizumab compared with bevacizumab were $1 110 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and $1 730 000 per QALY, respectively. During 10 years, they were $349 000 per QALY and $603 000 per QALY, respectively. Compared with ranibizumab, aflibercept's ICER was $648 000 per QALY at 1 year and $203 000 per QALY at 10 years. For the subgroup with worse baseline vision, the 10-year ICERs of aflibercept and ranibizumab compared with bevacizumab were $287 000 per QALY and $817 000 per QALY, respectively. In eyes with decreased vision from DME, treatment costs of aflibercept and ranibizumab would need to decrease by 69% and 80%, respectively, to reach a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100 000 per QALY compared with bevacizumab during a 10-year horizon; for the subgroup with worse baseline vision, the costs would need to decrease by 62% and 84%, respectively.Conclusions and relevanceAflibercept (2.0 mg) and ranibizumab (0.3 mg) are not cost-effective relative to bevacizumab for treatment of DME unless their prices decrease substantially. These results highlight the challenges that physicians, patients, and policymakers face when safety and efficacy results are at odds with cost-effectiveness results.

Project description:ImportanceThe DRCR Retina Network Protocol AC showed no significant difference in visual acuity outcomes over 2 years between treatment with aflibercept monotherapy and bevacizumab first with switching to aflibercept for suboptimal response in treating diabetic macular edema (DME). Understanding the estimated cost and cost-effectiveness of these approaches is important.ObjectiveTo evaluate the cost and cost-effectiveness of aflibercept monotherapy vs bevacizumab-first strategies for DME treatment.Design, setting, and participantsThis economic evaluation was a preplanned secondary analysis of a US randomized clinical trial of participants aged 18 years or older with center-involved DME and best-corrected visual acuity of 20/50 to 20/320 enrolled from December 15, 2017, through November 25, 2019.InterventionsAflibercept monotherapy or bevacizumab first, switching to aflibercept in eyes with protocol-defined suboptimal response.Main outcomes and measuresBetween February and July 2022, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) over 2 years was assessed. Efficacy and resource utilization data from the randomized clinical trial were used with health utility mapping from the literature and Medicare unit costs.ResultsThis study included 228 participants (median age, 62 [range, 34-91 years; 116 [51%] female and 112 [49%] male; 44 [19%] Black or African American, 60 [26%] Hispanic or Latino, and 117 [51%] White) with 1 study eye. The aflibercept monotherapy group included 116 participants, and the bevacizumab-first group included 112, of whom 62.5% were eventually switched to aflibercept. Over 2 years, the cost of aflibercept monotherapy was $26 504 (95% CI, $24 796-$28 212) vs $13 929 (95% CI, $11 984-$15 874) for the bevacizumab-first group, a difference of $12 575 (95% CI, $9987-$15 163). The aflibercept monotherapy group gained 0.015 (95% CI, -0.011 to 0.041) QALYs using the better-seeing eye and had an ICER of $837 077 per QALY gained compared with the bevacizumab-first group. Aflibercept could be cost-effective with an ICER of $100 000 per QALY if the price per dose were $305 or less or the price of bevacizumab was $1307 per dose or more.Conclusions and relevanceVariability in individual needs will influence clinician and patient decisions about how to treat specific eyes with DME. While the bevacizumab-first group costs still averaged approximately $14 000 over 2 years, this approach, as used in this study, may confer substantial cost savings on a societal level without sacrificing visual acuity gains over 2 years compared with aflibercept monotherapy.

Project description:PurposeTo assess how patient choices (out-of-pocket costs, insurance plan, geographic region) impact initiation of therapy for diabetic macular edema (DME).DesignRetrospective cohort study using administrative medical claims data from a large, national insurer.ParticipantsAll patients newly diagnosed with DME from 2013 through 2016 were observed for 90 days after diagnosis or until first treatment was received.MethodsMultivariate logistic regression was used to create odds ratios comparing different baseline demographic and patient-related factors.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the odds of receiving the different possible initial treatments for DME (anti-vascular endothelial growth factor [VEGF], focal laser treatment, steroids, or observation), no treatment, and not following up.ResultsOf the 6220 newly diagnosed DME patients, 3010 (48.4%) underwent a follow-up examination within 90 days of diagnosis, and of those, 1453 patients (48.3%) received treatment in the observation window, including 614 (20.4%) with bevacizumab, 191 (6.3%) with ranibizumab or aflibercept, 560 (18.6%) with focal laser, 38 (1.3%) with steroid injection, and 50 (1.7%) with an injection of an unspecified drug. Having a copay (vs. $0) lowered the odds of receiving any treatment (odds ratio [OR] = 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51-0.71; P < 0.001) and of receiving each treatment individually (anti-VEGF treatment: OR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59-0.88; bevacizumab: OR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.59-0.91; ranibizumab or aflibercept: OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.49-0.99; focal laser: OR = 0.44; 95% CI, 0.35-0.55; P < 0.001). Contrary to having a copay, having a high deductible and type of insurance plan were not associated with initiating treatment (P > 0.41 for all comparisons). Patients in the Northeast showed lower odds of initiating anti-VEGF treatment (OR = 0.60; 95%CI, 0.44-0.82; P < 0.001) and specifically bevacizumab (OR = 0.47; 95% CI, 0.33-0.67; P < 0.001). Furthermore, Northeast patients who were treated with anti-VEGF showed a higher odds of receiving ranibizumab or aflibercept compared with bevacizumab (OR = 2.39; 95% CI, 1.31-4.37; P < 0.001). Southern Midwest patients showed a higher odds of treatment (anti-VEGF: OR = 1.35; 95%CI, 1.02-1.77; P < 0.001; bevacizumab: OR = 1.40; 95% CI, 1.04-1.87; focal laser: OR = 1.39; 95% CI, 1.01-1.89; P < 0.001).ConclusionsPatient choices such as copays and where they live are important factors in determining the initial choice of treatment for DME.

Project description:Background: Retinal diseases are major contributors to disability, significantly affecting patients' quality of life. Diabetic macular edema (DME) and neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) represent a significant disease and economic burden in Colombia. Assessing the economic evaluation of available treatments is essential for the efficient allocation of healthcare resources. Objective: To estimate the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of using faricimab for the treatment of patients with DME and nAMD within the Colombian health system. Methods: This study used a 25-year Markov cohort model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of faricimab vs aflibercept, ranibizumab, and brolucizumab. We used the methodological guidelines of the local health technology assessment agency for conducting the cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis. Transition probabilities and injection frequencies were derived from the literature. Drug prices were retrieved from public local databases. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were assessed. The potential patient population for the budget impact analysis was estimated based on disease prevalence and expert consultations. Results: Faricimab treat-and-extend (T&E) was dominant vs aflibercept T&E (+0.22 QALYs), ranibizumab T&E (+0.55 QALYs), and brolucizumab for 8 to 12 weeks (+0.06 QALYs) in DME, generating cost savings (in US dollars) of 3849, 1375, and 2824,respectively.InnAMD,faricimabalsoshoweddominancevsafliberceptasneeded(+0.12QALYs),ranibizumabasneeded(+0.05QALYs),andbrolucizumab8to12weeks(+0.12QALYs)withsavingsin(US) 7223, 5792,and 6798, respectively. Assuming an annual market share increase for faricimab of 15% for DME and 13% for nAMD, the Colombian Health System could save 144millionover3years.Ofthesesavings, 122.7 million are attributed to drug costs and 21.3milliontoadministrationcosts(US 1 = Col$4325). Conclusion: Considering a willingness to pay threshold of $5988 per additional QALY, faricimab is a cost-effective alternative for both DME and nAMD for the Colombian healthcare system, showing dominance over other anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents. Faricimab provides better health outcomes at lower costs vs other treatments.

Project description:ObjectivePerform a cost-effectiveness analysis of the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME) with ranibizumab plus prompt or deferred laser versus triamcinolone plus prompt laser. Data for the analysis were drawn from reports of the Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network (DRCRnet) Protocol I.DesignComputer simulation based on Protocol I data. Analyses were conducted from the payor perspective.ParticipantsSimulated participants assigned characteristics reflecting those seen in Protocol I.MethodsMarkov models were constructed to replicate Protocol I's 104-week outcomes using a microsimulation approach to estimation. Baseline characteristics, visual acuity (VA), treatments, and complications were based on Protocol I data. Costs were identified by literature search. One-way sensitivity analysis was performed, and the results were validated against Protocol I data.Main outcome measuresDirect cost of care for 2 years, change in VA from baseline, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) measured as cost per additional letter gained from baseline (Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study).ResultsFor sham plus laser (S+L), ranibizumab plus prompt laser (R+pL), ranibizumab plus deferred laser (R+dL), and triamcinolone plus laser (T+L), effectiveness through 104 weeks was predicted to be 3.46, 7.07, 8.63, and 2.40 letters correct, respectively. The ICER values in terms of dollars per VA letter were $393 (S+L vs. T+L), $5943 (R+pL vs. S+L), and $20 (R+dL vs. R+pL). For pseudophakics, the ICER value for comparison triamcinolone with laser versus ranibizumab with deferred laser was $14 690 per letter gained. No clinically relevant changes in model variables altered outcomes. Internal validation demonstrated good similarity to Protocol I treatment patterns.ConclusionsIn treatment of phakic patients with DME, ranibizumab with deferred laser provided an additional 6 letters correct compared with triamcinolone with laser at an additional cost of $19 216 over 2 years. That would indicate that if the gain in VA seen at 2 years is maintained in subsequent years, then the treatment of phakic patients with DME using ranibizumab may meet accepted standards of cost-effectiveness. For pseudophakic patients, first-line treatment with triamcinolone seems to be the most cost-effective option.

Project description:The prevalence of persistent diabetic macular edema (DME) after months of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy and its effect on visual acuity are unknown.To assess subsequent outcomes of eyes with DME persisting for 24 weeks after initiating treatment with 0.5 mg of ranibizumab.We performed post hoc, exploratory analyses of a randomized clinical trial from March 20, 2007, through January 29, 2014, from 117 of 296 eyes (39.5%) randomly assigned to receive ranibizumab with persistent DME (central subfield thickness ?250 ?m on time domain optical coherence tomography) through the 24-week visit.Four monthly intravitreous injections of ranibizumab and then as needed per protocol.Cumulative 3-year probabilities of chronic persistent DME (failure to achieve a central subfield thickness <250 ?m and at least a 10% reduction from the 24-week visit on at least 2 consecutive study visits) determined by life-table analyses, and at least 10 letter (?2 line) gain or loss of visual acuity among those eyes.The probability of chronic persistent DME among eyes with persistent DME at the 24-week visit decreased from 100% at the 32-week visit to 81.1% (99% CI, 69.6%-88.6%), 55.8% (99% CI, 42.9%-66.9%), and 40.1% (99% CI, 27.4%-52.4%) at the 1-, 2-, and 3-year visits, respectively. At 3 years, visual acuity improved in eyes with and without chronic persistent DME through the follow-up period, respectively, by a mean of 7 letters and 13 letters from baseline. Among 40 eyes with chronic persistent edema through 3 years, 17 (42.5%) (99% CI, 23.1%-63.7%) gained 10 letters or more from baseline, whereas 5 (12.5%) (99% CI, 2.8%-31.5%) lost 10 letters or more from baseline.These data suggest less than half of eyes treated for DME with intravitreous ranibizumab have persistent central-involved DME through 24 weeks after initiating treatment. Among the 40% that then have chronic persistent central-involved DME through 3 years, longer-term visual acuity outcomes appear to be slightly worse than in the 60% in which DME does not persist. Nevertheless, when following the treatment protocol used in this trial among eyes with vision impairment from DME, long-term improvement in visual acuity from baseline is typical and substantial (?2-line) loss of visual acuity is likely uncommon through 3 years, even when central-involved DME chronically persists.

Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of treatment of diabetic macular edema.

Background

Objective

Design

Data sources

Target population

Time horizon

Perspective

Intervention

Outcome measures

Results of base-case analysis

Results of sensitivity analysis

Limitation

Conclusion

Primary funding source

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of treatment of diabetic macular edema.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets