Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT: 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.Cost-effectiveness analysis.Hypothetical cohort of 80-year-old patients with newly diagnosed neovascular macular degeneration.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.Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental costs per QALY gained.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.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.

SUBMITTER: Stein JD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4109727 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Stein Joshua D JD Newman-Casey Paula Anne PA Mrinalini Tavag T Lee Paul P PP Hutton David W DW

Ophthalmology 20140107 4

<h4>Purpose</h4>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.<h4>Design</h4>Cost-effectiveness analysis.<h4>Participants</h4>Hypothetical cohort of 80-year-old patients with newly diagnosed neovascular macular degeneration.<h4>Methods</h4>Using a mathematical model with a 20-year time horizon, we compared the incremental cost- ...[more]

PMID: 24405740

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Clinical trials have established the efficacy of ranibizumab for the treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD). In addition, bevacizumab is used off-label to treat AMD, despite the absence of similar supporting data. METHODS:In a multicenter, single-blind, noninferiority trial, we randomly assigned 1208 patients with neovascular AMD to receive intravitreal injections of ranibizumab or bevacizumab on either a monthly schedule or as needed with monthly evaluation. The primary outcome was the mean change in visual acuity at 1 year, with a noninferiority limit of 5 letters on the eye chart. RESULTS:Bevacizumab administered monthly was equivalent to ranibizumab administered monthly, with 8.0 and 8.5 letters gained, respectively. Bevacizumab administered as needed was equivalent to ranibizumab as needed, with 5.9 and 6.8 letters gained, respectively. Ranibizumab as needed was equivalent to monthly ranibizumab, although the comparison between bevacizumab as needed and monthly bevacizumab was inconclusive. The mean decrease in central retinal thickness was greater in the ranibizumab-monthly group (196 ?m) than in the other groups (152 to 168 ?m, P=0.03 by analysis of variance). Rates of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke were similar for patients receiving either bevacizumab or ranibizumab (P>0.20). The proportion of patients with serious systemic adverse events (primarily hospitalizations) was higher with bevacizumab than with ranibizumab (24.1% vs. 19.0%; risk ratio, 1.29; 95% confidence interval, 1.01 to 1.66), with excess events broadly distributed in disease categories not identified in previous studies as areas of concern. CONCLUSIONS:At 1 year, bevacizumab and ranibizumab had equivalent effects on visual acuity when administered according to the same schedule. Ranibizumab given as needed with monthly evaluation had effects on vision that were equivalent to those of ranibizumab administered monthly. Differences in rates of serious adverse events require further study. (Funded by the National Eye Institute; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00593450.).

Project description:ObjectiveTo describe effects of ranibizumab and bevacizumab when administered monthly or as needed for 2 years and to describe the impact of switching to as-needed treatment after 1 year of monthly treatment.DesignMulticenter, randomized clinical trial.ParticipantsPatients (n = 1107) who were followed up during year 2 among 1185 patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration who were enrolled in the clinical trial.InterventionsAt enrollment, patients were assigned to 4 treatment groups defined by drug (ranibizumab or bevacizumab) and dosing regimen (monthly or as needed). At 1 year, patients initially assigned to monthly treatment were reassigned randomly to monthly or as-needed treatment, without changing the drug assignment.Main outcome measuresMean change in visual acuity.ResultsAmong patients following the same regimen for 2 years, mean gain in visual acuity was similar for both drugs (bevacizumab-ranibizumab difference, -1.4 letters; 95% confidence interval [CI], -3.7 to 0.8; P = 0.21). Mean gain was greater for monthly than for as-needed treatment (difference, -2.4 letters; 95% CI, -4.8 to -0.1; P = 0.046). The proportion without fluid ranged from 13.9% in the bevacizumab-as-needed group to 45.5% in the ranibizumab monthly group (drug, P = 0.0003; regimen, P < 0.0001). Switching from monthly to as-needed treatment resulted in greater mean decrease in vision during year 2 (-2.2 letters; P = 0.03) and a lower proportion without fluid (-19%; P < 0.0001). Rates of death and arteriothrombotic events were similar for both drugs (P > 0.60). The proportion of patients with 1 or more systemic serious adverse events was higher with bevacizumab than ranibizumab (39.9% vs. 31.7%; adjusted risk ratio, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.07-1.57; P = 0.009). Most of the excess events have not been associated previously with systemic therapy targeting vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF).ConclusionsRanibizumab and bevacizumab had similar effects on visual acuity over a 2-year period. Treatment as needed resulted in less gain in visual acuity, whether instituted at enrollment or after 1 year of monthly treatment. There were no differences between drugs in rates of death or arteriothrombotic events. The interpretation of the persistence of higher rates of serious adverse events with bevacizumab is uncertain because of the lack of specificity to conditions associated with inhibition of VEGF.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The discussion on the use of bevacizumab is still ongoing and often doctors are deterred from using bevacizumab due to legal or political issues. Bevacizumab is an effective, safe and inexpensive treatment option for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD), albeit unregistered for the disease. Therefore, in some countries ophthalmologists use the equally effective but expensive drugs ranibizumab and aflibercept. We describe the economic consequences of this dilemma surrounding AMD treatment from a societal perspective. METHODS:We modelled cost-effectiveness of treatment with ranibizumab (as-needed), aflibercept (bimonthly) and bevacizumab (as-needed). Effectiveness was estimated by systematic review and meta-analysis. The drug with the most favourable cost-effectiveness profile compared to bevacizumab was used for threshold analyses. First, we determined how much we overspend per injection. Second, we calculated the required effectiveness to justify the current price and the reasonable price for a drug leading to optimal vision. Finally, we estimated how much Europe overspends if bevacizumab is not first choice. RESULTS:Bevacizumab treatment costs €27,087 per year, about €4,000 less than aflibercept and €6,000 less than ranibizumab. With similar effectiveness for all drugs as shown by meta-analysis, bevacizumab was the most cost-effective. Aflibercept was chosen for threshold analyses. Aflibercept costs €943 per injection, but we determined that the maximum price to be cost-effective is €533. Alternatively, at its current price, aflibercept should yield about twice the visual gain. Even when optimal vision can be achieved, the maximum price for any treatment is €37,453 per year. Most importantly, Europe overspends €335 million yearly on AMD treatment when choosing aflibercept over bevacizumab. CONCLUSION:Bevacizumab is the most cost-effective treatment for AMD, yet is not the standard of care across Europe. The registered drugs ranibizumab and aflibercept lead to large overspending without additional health benefits. Health authorities should consider taking steps to implement bevacizumab into clinical practice as first choice.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the incremental cost and cost-effectiveness of continuous and discontinuous regimens of bevacizumab (Avastin) and ranibizumab (Lucentis) for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) from a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective.DesignA within-trial cost-utility analysis with a 2-year time horizon, based on a multicentre factorial, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial.Setting23 hospital ophthalmology clinics.Participants610 patients aged ?50?years with untreated nAMD in the study eye.Interventions0.5?mg ranibizumab or 1.25?mg bevacizumab given continuously (monthly) or discontinuously (as-needed) for 2?years.Main outcome measuresQuality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).ResultsTotal 2-year costs ranged from £3002/patient ($4700; 95% CI £2601 to £3403) for discontinuous bevacizumab to £18?590/patient ($29?106; 95% CI £18?258 to £18?922) for continuous ranibizumab. Ranibizumab was significantly more costly than bevacizumab for both continuous (+£14?989/patient ($23?468); 95% CI £14?522 to £15?456; p<0.001) and discontinuous treatment (+£8498 ($13?305); 95% CI £7700 to £9295; p<0.001), with negligible difference in QALYs. Continuous ranibizumab would only be cost-effective compared with continuous bevacizumab if the NHS were willing to pay £3.5 million ($5.5 million) per additional QALY gained. Patients receiving continuous bevacizumab accrued higher total costs (+£599 ($938); 95% CI £91 to £1107; p=0.021) than those receiving discontinuous bevacizumab, but also accrued non-significantly more QALYs (+0.020; 95% CI -0.032 to 0.071; p=0.452). Continuous bevacizumab therefore cost £30?220 ($47?316) per QALY gained versus discontinuous bevacizumab. However, bootstrapping demonstrated that if the NHS is willing to pay £20?000/QALY gained, there is a 37% chance that continuous bevacizumab is cost-effective versus discontinuous bevacizumab.ConclusionsRanibizumab is not cost-effective compared with bevacizumab, being substantially more costly and producing little or no QALY gain. Discontinuous bevacizumab is likely to be the most cost-effective of the four treatment strategies evaluated in this UK trial, although there is a 37% chance that continuous bevacizumab is cost-effective.Trial registration numberISRCTN92166560.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the baseline predictors of visual acuity (VA) outcomes 1 year after treatment with ranibizumab or bevacizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD).DesignCohort study within the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degeneration Treatments Trials (CATT).ParticipantsA total of 1105 participants with neovascular AMD, baseline VA 20/25 to 20/320, and VA measured at 1 year.MethodsParticipants were randomly assigned to ranibizumab or bevacizumab on a monthly or as-needed schedule. Masked readers evaluated fundus morphology and features on optical coherence tomography (OCT). Visual acuity was measured using electronic VA testing. Independent predictors were identified using regression techniques.Main outcome measuresThe VA score, VA score change from baseline, and ?3-line gain at 1 year.ResultsAt 1 year, the mean VA score was 68 letters, mean improvement from baseline was 7 letters, and 28% of participants gained ?3 lines. Older age, larger area of choroidal neovascularization (CNV), and elevation of retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) were associated with worse VA (all P<0.005), less gain in VA (all P<0.02), and a lower proportion gaining ?3 lines (all P<0.04). Better baseline VA was associated with better VA at 1 year, less gain in VA, and a lower proportion gaining ?3 lines (all P<0.0001). Predominantly or minimally classic lesions were associated with worse VA than occult lesions (66 vs. 69 letters; P=0.0003). Retinal angiomatous proliferans (RAP) lesions were associated with more gain in VA (10 vs. 7 letters; P=0.03) and a higher proportion gaining ?3 lines (odds ratio, 1.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-3.1). Geographic atrophy (GA) was associated with worse VA (64 vs. 68 letters; P=0.02). Eyes with total foveal thickness in the second quartile (325-425 ?m) had the best VA (P=0.01) and were most likely to gain ?3 lines (P=0.004). Predictors did not vary by treatment group.ConclusionsFor all treatment groups, older age, better baseline VA, larger CNV area, predominantly or minimally classic lesion, absence of RAP lesion, presence of GA, greater total fovea thickness, and RPE elevation on optical coherence tomography were independently associated with less improvement in VA at 1 year.Financial disclosure(s)The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.

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.

Dataset Information

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

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets