Dataset Information

Five-Year Cost-effectiveness of Intravitreous Ranibizumab Therapy vs Panretinal Photocoagulation for Treating Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT: Importance:The DRCR Retina Network Protocol S randomized clinical trial suggested that the mean visual acuity of eyes with proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) treated with ranibizumab is not worse at 5 years than that of eyes treated with panretinal photocoagulation (PRP). Moreover, the ranibizumab group had fewer new cases of diabetic macular edema (DME) with vision loss or vitrectomy but had 4 times the number of injections and 3 times the number of visits. Although 2-year cost-effectiveness results of Protocol S were previously identified, incorporating 5-year data from Protocol S could alter the longer-term cost-effectiveness of the treatment strategies from the perspective of the health care system. Objective:To evaluate 5- and 10-year cost-effectiveness of therapy with ranibizumab, 0.5 mg, compared with PRP for treating PDR. Design, Setting, and Participants:A preplanned secondary analysis of the Protocol S randomized clinical trial using efficacy, safety, and resource utilization data through 5 years of follow-up for 213 adults diagnosed with PDR and simulating results through 10 years. Interventions:Intravitreous ranibizumab, 0.5 mg, at baseline and as frequently as every 4 weeks based on a structured retreatment protocol vs PRP at baseline for PDR; eyes in both groups could receive ranibizumab for concomitant DME with vision loss. Main Outcomes and Measures:Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of ranibizumab therapy compared with PRP were evaluated for those with and without center-involved DME (CI-DME) and vision loss (Snellen equivalent, 20/32 or worse) at baseline. Results:The study included 213 adults with a mean (SD) age of 53 (12) years, of whom 92 (43%) were women and 155 (73%) were white. The ICER of the ranibizumab group compared with PRP for patients without CI-DME at baseline was $582 268 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) at 5 years and $742 202/QALY at 10 years. For patients with baseline CI-DME, ICERs were $65 576/QALY at 5 years and $63 930/QALY at 10 years. Conclusions and Relevance:This study suggests that during 5 to 10 years of treatment, ranibizumab, 0.5 mg, as given in the studied trial compared with PRP may be within the frequently cited range considered cost-effective in the United States for eyes presenting with PDR and vision-impairing CI-DME, but not for those with PDR but without vision-impairing CI-DME. Substantial reductions in anti-vascular endothelial growth factor cost may make the ranibizumab therapy cost-effective within this range even for patients without baseline CI-DME. Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01489189.

SUBMITTER: Hutton DW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6813595 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Five-Year Cost-effectiveness of Intravitreous Ranibizumab Therapy vs Panretinal Photocoagulation for Treating Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Hutton David W DW Stein Joshua D JD Glassman Adam R AR Bressler Neil M NM Jampol Lee M LM Sun Jennifer K JK

JAMA ophthalmology 20191201 12

<h4>Importance</h4>The DRCR Retina Network Protocol S randomized clinical trial suggested that the mean visual acuity of eyes with proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) treated with ranibizumab is not worse at 5 years than that of eyes treated with panretinal photocoagulation (PRP). Moreover, the ranibizumab group had fewer new cases of diabetic macular edema (DME) with vision loss or vitrectomy but had 4 times the number of injections and 3 times the number of visits. Although 2-year cost-ef ...[more]

PMID: 31647496

Similar Datasets

Project description:IMPORTANCE:Panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) is the standard treatment for reducing severe visual loss from proliferative diabetic retinopathy. However, PRP can damage the retina, resulting in peripheral vision loss or worsening diabetic macular edema (DME). OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the noninferiority of intravitreous ranibizumab compared with PRP for visual acuity outcomes in patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:Randomized clinical trial conducted at 55 US sites among 305 adults with proliferative diabetic retinopathy enrolled between February and December 2012 (mean age, 52 years; 44% female; 52% white). Both eyes were enrolled for 89 participants (1 eye to each study group), with a total of 394 study eyes. The final 2-year visit was completed in January 2015. INTERVENTIONS:Individual eyes were randomly assigned to receive PRP treatment, completed in 1 to 3 visits (n?=?203 eyes), or ranibizumab, 0.5 mg, by intravitreous injection at baseline and as frequently as every 4 weeks based on a structured re-treatment protocol (n?=?191 eyes). Eyes in both treatment groups could receive ranibizumab for DME. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:The primary outcome was mean visual acuity change at 2 years (5-letter noninferiority margin; intention-to-treat analysis). Secondary outcomes included visual acuity area under the curve, peripheral visual field loss, vitrectomy, DME development, and retinal neovascularization. RESULTS:Mean visual acuity letter improvement at 2 years was +2.8 in the ranibizumab group vs +0.2 in the PRP group (difference, +2.2; 95% CI, -0.5 to +5.0; P?<?.001 for noninferiority). The mean treatment group difference in visual acuity area under the curve over 2 years was +4.2 (95% CI, +3.0 to +5.4; P?<?.001). Mean peripheral visual field sensitivity loss was worse (-23 dB vs -422 dB; difference, 372 dB; 95% CI, 213-531 dB; P?<?.001), vitrectomy was more frequent (15% vs 4%; difference, 9%; 95% CI, 4%-15%; P?<?.001), and DME development was more frequent (28% vs 9%; difference, 19%; 95% CI, 10%-28%; P?<?.001) in the PRP group vs the ranibizumab group, respectively. Eyes without active or regressed neovascularization at 2 years were not significantly different (35% in the ranibizumab group vs 30% in the PRP group; difference, 3%; 95% CI, -7% to 12%; P?=?.58). One eye in the ranibizumab group developed endophthalmitis. No significant differences between groups in rates of major cardiovascular events were identified. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:Among eyes with proliferative diabetic retinopathy, treatment with ranibizumab resulted in visual acuity that was noninferior to (not worse than) PRP treatment at 2 years. Although longer-term follow-up is needed, ranibizumab may be a reasonable treatment alternative, at least through 2 years, for patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy. TRIAL REGISTRATION:clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01489189.

Project description:Importance:Ranibizumab is a viable treatment option for eyes with proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) through 2 years. However, longer-term results are needed. Objective:To evaluate efficacy and safety of 0.5-mg intravitreous ranibizumab vs panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) over 5 years for PDR. Design, Setting, and Participants:Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network multicenter randomized clinical trial evaluated 394 study eyes with PDR enrolled February through December 2012. Analysis began in January 2018. Interventions:Eyes were randomly assigned to receive intravitreous ranibizumab (n?=?191) or PRP (n?=?203). Frequency of ranibizumab was based on a protocol-specified retreatment algorithm. Diabetic macular edema could be managed with ranibizumab in either group. Main Outcomes and Measures:Mean change in visual acuity (intention-to-treat analysis) was the main outcome. Secondary outcomes included peripheral visual field loss, development of vision-impairing diabetic macular edema, and ocular and systemic safety. Results:The 5-year visit was completed by 184 of 277 participants (66% excluding deaths). Of 305 enrolled participants, the mean (SD) age was 52 (12) years, 135 (44%) were women, and 160 (52%) were white. For the ranibizumab and PRP groups, the mean (SD) number of injections over 5 years was 19.2?(10.9) and 5.4?(7.9), respectively; the mean (SD) change in visual acuity letter score was 3.1?(14.3) and 3.0?(10.5) letters, respectively (adjusted difference,?0.6; 95% CI, -2.3 to 3.5; P?=?.68); the mean visual acuity was 20/25 (approximate?Snellen equivalent) in both groups at 5 years. The mean (SD) change in cumulative visual field total point score was -330?(645) vs -527?(635) dB in the ranibizumab (n?=?41) and PRP (n?=?38) groups, respectively (adjusted difference,?208 dB; 95% CI, 9-408). Vision-impairing diabetic macular edema developed in 27 and 53 eyes in the ranibizumab and PRP groups, respectively (cumulative probabilities: 22% vs 38%; hazard ratio,?0.4; 95% CI, 0.3-0.7). No statistically significant differences between groups in major systemic adverse event rates were identified. Conclusions and Relevance:Although loss to follow-up was relatively high, visual acuity in most study eyes that completed follow-up was very good at 5 years and was similar in both groups. Severe vision loss or serious PDR complications were uncommon with PRP or ranibizumab; however, the ranibizumab group had lower rates of developing vision-impairing diabetic macular edema and less visual field loss. Patient-specific factors, including anticipated visit compliance, cost, and frequency of visits, should be considered when choosing treatment for patients with PDR. These findings support either anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy or PRP as viable treatments for patients with PDR. Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01489189.

Project description:ImportanceThe Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network Protocol S randomized clinical trial results suggest that ranibizumab is a reasonable treatment alternative to panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) when managing proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR), with or without concomitant baseline diabetic macular edema (DME). However, ranibizumab injections are costly. Thus, it would be useful to examine the relative cost-effectiveness of these 2 treatment modalities.ObjectiveTo evaluate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of 0.5-mg ranibizumab therapy vs PRP for PDR.Design, setting, and participantsPreplanned secondary analysis using efficacy, safety, and resource utilization data through 2 years of follow-up at 55 US sites for 213 adults with PDR. Data were collected from February 2012 to January 2015.InterventionsIntravitreous 0.5-mg ranibizumab at baseline and as frequently as every 4 weeks based on a structured retreatment protocol or PRP at baseline for PDR. Eyes in both groups could receive ranibizumab for concomitant DME.Main outcomes and measuresIncremental cost-effectiveness ratios of ranibizumab compared with PRP evaluated within 2 prespecified subgroups for the study eye: with baseline vision-impairing (Snellen equivalent 20/32 or worse) DME and without baseline vision-impairing DME.ResultsThe study included 305 adults with PDR, the mean age was 52 years, 44% were women, and 52% were white. Of the 46 participants with PDR and vision-impairing DME at baseline, 21 were assigned to the ranibizumab group and 25 to the PRP group (plus ranibizumab for DME). Among the remaining participants without baseline vision-impairing DME, 80 and 87 were in the ranibizumab and PRP groups, respectively. For participants with and without baseline vision-impairing DME, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of ranibizumab therapy compared with PRP were $55 568/quality-adjusted life-year and $662 978/quality-adjusted life-year, respectively, over 2 years.Conclusions and relevanceOver 2 years, compared with PRP, 0.5-mg ranibizumab as given in this trial is within the $50 000/quality-adjusted life-year to $150 000/quality-adjusted life-year range frequently cited as cost-effective in the United States for eyes presenting with PDR and vision-impairing DME, but not for those with PDR without vision-impairing DME.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01489189.

Project description:PURPOSE:To compare rates and identify predictive factors for events that represent worsening of proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) in eyes treated with panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) or ranibizumab. DESIGN:Randomized clinical trial (55 United States sites). PARTICIPANTS:Three hundred ninety-four study eyes from 305 adults with PDR, visual acuity (VA) 20/320 or better, and no history of PRP. INTERVENTION:Panretinal photocoagulation or intravitreous ranibizumab injections (0.5 mg/0.05 ml). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Time from randomization to a composite PDR-worsening outcome defined as the first occurrence of vitreous hemorrhage, retinal detachment, anterior segment neovascularization, or neovascular glaucoma. RESULTS:Through 2 years, the cumulative probability of worsening PDR was 42% (PRP) versus 34% (ranibizumab; hazard ratio [HR], 1.33; 99% confidence interval [CI], 0.90 to 1.98; P = 0.063). Worse baseline levels of diabetic retinopathy severity (Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study scale) were associated with increased risk of worsening PDR, regardless of treatment group (64% [high-risk PDR or worse] vs. 23% [moderate PDR or better]; HR, 3.97; 99% CI, 2.48 to 6.36; P < 0.001). In the PRP group, eyes receiving pattern scan versus conventional single-spot PRP also were at higher risk for worsening PDR (60% vs. 39%; HR, 2.04; 99% CI, 1.02 to 4.08; P = 0.008), regardless of the number of spots placed or the number of sittings to complete the initial PRP. Eyes in both groups with vision-impairing (VA 20/32 or worse) center-involved diabetic macular edema (DME) at baseline were required to receive ranibizumab for center-involved DME. Therefore the composite outcome was compared by treatment in the subgroup of eyes that did not have vision-impairing center-involved DME at baseline. For these eyes, the rate of PDR-worsening was greater with PRP than ranibizumab (45% vs. 31%; HR, 1.62; 99% CI, 1.01 to 2.60; P = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS:In eyes with PDR, ranibizumab resulted in less PDR worsening compared with PRP, especially in eyes not required to receive ranibizumab for center-involved DME. Although anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy requires a more frequent visit schedule than PRP, these findings provide additional evidence supporting the use of ranibizumab as an alternative therapy to PRP for PDR, at least through 2 years.

Project description:PurposeTo identify baseline factors associated with change in visual acuity or development of vision-impairing central-involved diabetic macular edema (DME) over 2 years when treating proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) with ranibizumab or panretinal photocoagulation (PRP).DesignPost hoc analyses of randomized, multicenter clinical trial data.ParticipantsEyes completing the 2-year visit (n = 328) or without vision-impairing central-involved DME at baseline (n = 302) in Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network Protocol S.MethodsIntravitreous ranibizumab (0.5 mg/0.05 ml) or PRP.Main outcome measuresChange in visual acuity (area under the curve) and development of vision-impairing (20/32 or worse) central-involved DME over 2 years.ResultsAfter multivariable model selection with adjustment for baseline visual acuity and central subfield thickness, no factors were identified as associated with change in visual acuity or development of vision-impairing central-involved DME within the ranibizumab group. In the PRP group, worse change in visual acuity was more likely with higher hemoglobin A1c level (-0.6 letters per 1% increase; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.2 to -0.1 letters; continuous P = 0.03), more severe diabetic retinopathy (difference between high-risk PDR or worse vs. moderate PDR or better, -2.8 letters [95% CI, -5.5 to -0.2 letters]; continuous P = 0.003), and higher mean arterial pressure (difference between ≥100 mmHg vs. <100 mmHg, -2.0 letters [95% CI, -4.6 to 0.5 letters]; continuous P = 0.009). Development of vision-impairing central-involved DME was more likely with higher hemoglobin A1c level (hazard ratio [HR] per 1% increase, 1.31 [95% CI, 1.13-1.52]; continuous P < 0.001), more severe diabetic retinopathy (HR for high-risk PDR or worse vs. moderate PDR or better, 1.46 [95% CI, 0.73-2.92]; continuous P = 0.03), and the presence of cystoid abnormalities within 500 μm of the macula center (HR, 2.90 [95% CI, 1.35-6.24]; P = 0.006).ConclusionsFor eyes managed with PRP, higher hemoglobin A1c level and more severe diabetic retinopathy were associated with less vision improvement and an increased risk of vision-impairing central-involved DME developing. When managing PDR with ranibizumab, eyes gained vision, on average, with no baseline characteristics identified as associated with visual acuity or central-involved DME outcomes.

Project description:ImportancePreservation of peripheral visual field (VF) is considered an advantage for anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents compared with panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) for treatment of proliferative diabetic retinopathy. Long-term data on VF are important when considering either treatment approach.ObjectiveTo further evaluate changes in VF throughout 5 years among eyes enrolled in the Protocol S clinical trial, conducted by the DRCR Retina Network.Design, setting, and participantsPost hoc analyses of an ancillary study within a multicenter (55 US sites) randomized clinical trial. Individuals with eyes with proliferative diabetic retinopathy enrolled in Protocol S were included. Data were collected from February 2012 to February 2018. Analysis began in June 2018.InterventionsPanretinal photocoagulation or intravitreous injections of 0.5-mg ranibizumab. Diabetic macular edema, whenever present, was treated with ranibizumab in both groups. Panretinal photocoagulation could be administered to eyes in the ranibizumab group when failure or futility criteria were met.Main outcomes and measuresMean change in total point score on VF testing with the Humphrey Field Analyzer 30-2 and 60-4 test patterns.ResultsOf 394 eyes enrolled in Protocol S, 234 (59.4%) were targeted for this ancillary study. Of these, 167 (71.4%) had VF meeting acceptable quality criteria at baseline (median [interquartile range] age, 50 [43-58] years; 90 men [53.9%]). At 5 years, 79 (33.8%) had results available. The mean (SD) change in total point score in the PRP and ranibizumab groups was -305 (521) dB and -36 (486) dB at 1 year, respectively, increasing to -527 (635) dB and -330 (645) dB at 5 years, respectively (P = .04). After censoring VF results after PRP treatments in the ranibizumab group, the 5-year mean change in total point score was -201 (442) dB. In a longitudinal regression analysis of change in total point score including both treatment groups, laser treatment was associated with a mean point decrease of 208 (95% CI, 112-304) dB for the initial PRP session, 77 (95% CI, 21-132) dB for additional PRP sessions, and 325 (95% CI, 211-439) dB for endolaser. No association was found between change in point score and the number of ranibizumab injections during the previous year (-9 per injection [95% CI, -22 to 3]).Conclusions and relevanceThe limited data available from Protocol S suggest that there are factors besides PRP associated with VF loss in eyes treated for proliferative diabetic retinopathy. Further clinical research is warranted to clarify the finding.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01489189.

Project description:ImportanceVitreous hemorrhage from proliferative diabetic retinopathy can cause loss of vision. The best management approach is unknown.ObjectiveTo compare initial treatment with intravitreous aflibercept vs vitrectomy with panretinal photocoagulation for vitreous hemorrhage from proliferative diabetic retinopathy.Design, setting, and participantsRandomized clinical trial at 39 DRCR Retina Network sites in the US and Canada including 205 adults with vison loss due to vitreous hemorrhage from proliferative diabetic retinopathy who were enrolled from November 2016 to December 2017. The final follow-up visit was completed in January 2020.InterventionsRandom assignment of eyes (1 per participant) to aflibercept (100 participants) or vitrectomy with panretinal photocoagulation (105 participants). Participants whose eyes were assigned to aflibercept initially received 4 monthly injections. Both groups could receive aflibercept or vitrectomy during follow-up based on protocol criteria.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was mean visual acuity letter score (range, 0-100; higher scores indicate better vision) over 24 weeks (area under the curve); the study was powered to detect a difference of 8 letters. Secondary outcomes included mean visual acuity at 4 weeks and 2 years.ResultsAmong 205 participants (205 eyes) who were randomized (mean [SD] age, 57 [11] years; 115 [56%] men; mean visual acuity letter score, 34.5 [Snellen equivalent, 20/200]), 95% (195 of 205) completed the 24-week visit and 90% (177 of 196, excluding 9 deaths) completed the 2-year visit. The mean visual acuity letter score over 24 weeks was 59.3 (Snellen equivalent, 20/63) (95% CI, 54.9 to 63.7) in the aflibercept group vs 63.0 (Snellen equivalent, 20/63) (95% CI, 58.6 to 67.3) in the vitrectomy group (adjusted difference, -5.0 [95% CI, -10.2 to 0.3], P = .06). Among 23 secondary outcomes, 15 showed no significant difference. The mean visual acuity letter score was 52.6 (Snellen equivalent, 20/100) in the aflibercept group vs 62.3 (Snellen equivalent, 20/63) in the vitrectomy group at 4 weeks (adjusted difference, -11.2 [95% CI, -18.5 to -3.9], P = .003) and 73.7 (Snellen equivalent, 20/40) vs 71.0 (Snellen equivalent, 20/40) at 2 years (adjusted difference, 2.7 [95% CI, -3.1 to 8.4], P = .36). Over 2 years, 33 eyes (33%) assigned to aflibercept received vitrectomy and 34 eyes (32%) assigned to vitrectomy received subsequent aflibercept.Conclusions and relevanceAmong participants whose eyes had vitreous hemorrhage from proliferative diabetic retinopathy, there was no statistically significant difference in the primary outcome of mean visual acuity letter score over 24 weeks following initial treatment with intravitreous aflibercept vs vitrectomy with panretinal photocoagulation. However, the study may have been underpowered, considering the range of the 95% CI, to detect a clinically important benefit in favor of initial vitrectomy with panretinal photocoagulation.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02858076.

Dataset Information

Five-Year Cost-effectiveness of Intravitreous Ranibizumab Therapy vs Panretinal Photocoagulation for Treating Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Publications

Five-Year Cost-effectiveness of Intravitreous Ranibizumab Therapy vs Panretinal Photocoagulation for Treating Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets