Dataset Information

Cost-Effectiveness of Conbercept vs. Ranibizumab for Age-Related Macular Degeneration, Diabetic Macular Edema, and Pathological Myopia: Population-Based Cohort Study and Markov Model.

ABSTRACT: Background: With the advent of aging society of China, fundus diseases related to pathological neovascularization, including age-related macular degeneration (AMD), diabetic macular edema (DME), and pathological myopia (PM), have become an increasingly serious medical and health problems. As effective drugs of the treatment, conbercept and ranibizumab have been commonly used and covered by the national basic medical insurance in China. However, the pharmacoeconomic evaluation of conbercept vs. ranibizumab for DME and PM remains lacking. This study would assess the cost-effectiveness of conbercept and ranibizumab for the treatment of AMD, DME, and PM from the perspective of Chinese payers. Methods: A Markov chain model was constructed based on the visual conditions of the patient indicated by the number of letters in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA). We conducted models based on real-world scenario to calculate the cost per the quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. A 1-year cycle length and a 10-year simulation treatment were applied and the number of injections of conbercept and ranibizumab was assumed to the average number within 10 years. Transition probabilities, costs, utility data, and other parameters were obtained from literature searches. A 3.5% discounting rate was applied for both the costs and utilities. Results: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were more favorable for conbercept than ranibizumab in treatment of AMD, DME, and PM, with associated ICER of 66,669 renminbi (RMB), -258,813 RMB, and -373,185 RMB per QALY gained. Compared with ranibizumab, the incremental effectiveness of conbercept in treatment of AMD, DME, and PM was -0.665 QALYs, 0.215 QALYs, and 0.029 QALYs, respectively. The sensitivity analysis showed the same findings, although the ICER is sensitive to the costs of this program. Conclusion: Under the current Chinese healthcare setting, conbercept is suitable and cost-effective in treatment of AMD, DME, and PM compared with ranibizumab.

SUBMITTER: Cui Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8676057 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Conbercept is a new anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) drug. Here, we systematically conducted the efficacy, safety, compliance, and pharmacoeconomic evaluation of intravitreal conbercept (IVC) compared with other treatments in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD), diabetic macular edema (DME), or pathologic myopia choroidal neovascularization (pmCNV). Methods: Databases of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, SinoMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and WanFang Data were systematically searched from the inception to July 27, 2021. Randomized clinical trials and pharmacoeconomic studies comparing IVC with control groups in adults with nAMD, DME, or pmCNV were reviewed and selected. Meta-analyses were performed using the fixed-effects model when pooled data were homogeneous. Heterogeneous data were analyzed using the random-effects model. Primary outcomes included visual improvement rate, mean change in visual acuity or best corrected visual acuity, and pharmacoeconomic outcomes. Additional outcomes were the mean change in fundus examination values, adverse events (AEs), quality-of-life measures, and number of injections. Results: Among 3,591 screened articles, 22 original studies with 1,910 eyes of patients were finally included. For nAMD and DME, IVC was significantly associated with better visual acuity or best corrected visual acuity improvement and fundus quantitative measures than placebo, laser photocoagulation (LP), or intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (IVT). However, IVC showed non-inferior efficacy to intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) according to low quality of evidence, and there was lack of trials comparing the priority of IVC to other anti-VEGF regimens. No definitive increased risk of ocular or non-ocular AEs were observed in the study groups. All patients with AEs recovered after symptomatic treatments, and no severe AEs occurred. Patients treated with IVC might have higher quality-of-life scores than those in IVR in nAMD or LP in DME. Additionally, IVC showed cost-utility advantages in nAMD and cost-effectiveness advantages than IVR in pmCNV in China. Conclusion: IVC is well-tolerated and effective for improving vision acuity and quantitative measures in fundus condition in patients with nAMD and DME compared with LP, IVT, and placebo, but gains comparable efficacy to IVR. However, well-designed, large-sample, and long-term evaluation of IVC shall be conducted in additional studies worldwide.

Project description:PurposeWe 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.DesignCost-effectiveness analysis.ParticipantsHypothetical cohort of 80-year-old patients with newly diagnosed neovascular macular degeneration.MethodsUsing 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 measuresCosts, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental costs per QALY gained.ResultsCompared 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.ConclusionsEven 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.

Project description:BackgroundThe relative efficacy and safety of intravitreous aflibercept, bevacizumab, and ranibizumab in the treatment of diabetic macular edema are unknown.MethodsAt 89 clinical sites, we randomly assigned 660 adults (mean age, 61±10 years) with diabetic macular edema involving the macular center to receive intravitreous aflibercept at a dose of 2.0 mg (224 participants), bevacizumab at a dose of 1.25 mg (218 participants), or ranibizumab at a dose of 0.3 mg (218 participants). The study drugs were administered as often as every 4 weeks, according to a protocol-specified algorithm. The primary outcome was the mean change in visual acuity at 1 year.ResultsFrom baseline to 1 year, the mean visual-acuity letter score (range, 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better visual acuity; a score of 85 is approximately 20/20) improved by 13.3 with aflibercept, by 9.7 with bevacizumab, and by 11.2 with ranibizumab. Although the improvement was greater with aflibercept than with the other two drugs (P<0.001 for aflibercept vs. bevacizumab and P=0.03 for aflibercept vs. ranibizumab), it was not clinically meaningful, because the difference was driven by the eyes with worse visual acuity at baseline (P<0.001 for interaction). When the initial visual-acuity letter score was 78 to 69 (equivalent to approximately 20/32 to 20/40) (51% of participants), the mean improvement was 8.0 with aflibercept, 7.5 with bevacizumab, and 8.3 with ranibizumab (P>0.50 for each pairwise comparison). When the initial letter score was less than 69 (approximately 20/50 or worse), the mean improvement was 18.9 with aflibercept, 11.8 with bevacizumab, and 14.2 with ranibizumab (P<0.001 for aflibercept vs. bevacizumab, P=0.003 for aflibercept vs. ranibizumab, and P=0.21 for ranibizumab vs. bevacizumab). There were no significant differences among the study groups in the rates of serious adverse events (P=0.40), hospitalization (P=0.51), death (P=0.72), or major cardiovascular events (P=0.56).ConclusionsIntravitreous aflibercept, bevacizumab, or ranibizumab improved vision in eyes with center-involved diabetic macular edema, but the relative effect depended on baseline visual acuity. When the initial visual-acuity loss was mild, there were no apparent differences, on average, among study groups. At worse levels of initial visual acuity, aflibercept was more effective at improving vision. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01627249.).

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 Conbercept vs. Ranibizumab for Age-Related Macular Degeneration, Diabetic Macular Edema, and Pathological Myopia: Population-Based Cohort Study and Markov Model.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets