Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cost Effectiveness of Treatments for Wet Age-Related Macular Degeneration

  • Review Article
  • Cost Effectiveness of Treatments for Wet AMD
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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 wetAMD(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 ranibizumabwith 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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Table I
Table II
Table III
Table IV
Table V

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The standard definition of normal visual acuity (20/20 or 6/6 vision) is the ability to resolve a spatial pattern separated by a visual angle of 1 minute of arc. A person with a visual acuity of 6/12 (20/40) can resolve the same pattern at a distance of 6 metres (20 feet) as a person with ‘normal’ visual acuity can at 12 metres (40 feet).

References

  1. Bird AC, Bressler NM, Bressler SB, et al. An international classification and grading systemfor age-relatedmaculopathy and age-related macular degeneration. The International ARM Epidemiological Study Group. Surv Ophthalmol 1995; 39: 367–74

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Colquitt JL, Jones J, Tan SC, et al. Ranibizumab and pegaptanib for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2008 May; 12 (16): iii–iv, ix–201

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Pizzarello LD. The dimensions of the problem of eye disease among the elderly. Ophthalmology 1987; 94: 1191–5

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Lafuma A, Brezin A, Fagnani F, et al. Nonmedical economic consequences attributable to visual impairment: a nationwide approach in France. Eur J Health Econ 2006; 7: 158–64

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Taylor HR, Pezzullo ML, Keeffe JE. The economic impact and cost of visual impairment in Australia. Br J Ophthalmol 2006; 90: 272–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Lafuma A, Brezin A, Lopatriello S, et al. Evaluation of nonmedical costs associated with visual impairment in four European countries: France, Italy, Germany and the UK. Pharmacoeconomics 2006; 24 (2): 193–205

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gragoudas ES, Adamis AP, Cunningham Jr ET, et al. Pegaptanib for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. N Engl J Med 2004; 351: 2805–16

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Brown DM, Kaiser PK, Michels M, et al. Ranibizumab versus verteporfin for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. N Engl J Med 2006; 355: 1432–44

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Rosenfeld PJ, Brown DM, Heier JS, et al. Ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. N Engl J Med 2006; 355: 1419–31

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Brown GC, Brown MM, Sharma S, et al. Incremental cost effectiveness of laser photocoagulation for subfoveal choroidal neovascularization. Ophthalmology 2000; 107: 1374–80

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Brown GC, Brown MM, Brown HC, et al. A value-based medicine comparison of interventions for subfoveal neovascular macular degeneration. Ophthalmology 2007; 114: 1170–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Busbee BG, Brown MM, Brown GC, et al. CME review: a cost-utility analysis of laser photocoagulation for extrafoveal choroidal neovascularization. Retina 2003; 23: 279–87

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Larouche K, Rochon S. Evaluation of photodynamic therapy for the treatment of exudative age-related macular degeneration (ARMD) with subfoveal neovascularization. Montreal (QC): Agence d’évaluation des technologies et des modes d’intervention en santé, 2005 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.aetmis.gouv.qc.ca/site/download.php?f=98a72111492a641cb55a200773a47eba [Accessed 2010 Apr 26]

    Google Scholar 

  14. Bansback N, Davis S, Brazier J. Using contrast sensitivity to estimate the cost-effectiveness of verteporfin in patients with predominantly classic age-related macular degeneration. Eye 2007; 21: 1455–63

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Brown GC, Brown MM, Campanella J, et al. The costutility of photodynamic therapy in eyes with neovascular macular degeneration: a value-based reappraisal with 5-year data. Am J Ophthalmol 2005; 140: 679–87

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Donati G. Cost-effectiveness of photodynamic therapy with verteporfin for choroidal neovascularization in agerelated macular degeneration in routine clinical practice in Switzerland. J Fr Ophtalmol 2007; 30: 837–41

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Hopley C, Salkeld G, Mitchell P. Cost utility of photodynamic therapy for predominantly classic neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Br J Ophthalmol 2004; 88: 982–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Meads C, Salas C, Roberts T, et al. Clinical effectiveness and cost-utility of photodynamic therapy for wet age-related macular degeneration: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2003; 7 (9): v-vi, 1–98

    Google Scholar 

  19. Sharma S, Brown GC, Brown MM, et al. The cost-effectiveness of photodynamic therapy for fellow eyes with subfoveal choroidal neovascularization secondary to agerelated macular degeneration. Ophthalmology 2001; 108: 2051–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Smith DH, Fenn P, Drummond M. Cost effectiveness of photodynamic therapy with verteporfin for age related macular degeneration: the UK case. Br J Ophthalmol 2004; 88: 1107–12

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Earnshaw SR, Moride Y, Rochon S. Cost-effectiveness of pegaptanib compared to photodynamic therapy with verteporfin and to standard care in the treatment of subfoveal wet age-related macular degeneration in Canada. Clin Ther 2007; 29: 2096–106

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Javitt JC, Zlateva GP, Earnshaw SR, et al. Cost-effectiveness model for neovascular age-related macular degeneration: comparing early and late treatment with pegaptanib sodium based on visual acuity. Value Health 2008; 11: 563–74

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Wolowacz SE, Roskell N, Kelly S, et al. Cost effectiveness of pegaptanib for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration in the UK. Pharmacoeconomics 2007; 25 (10): 863–79

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Brown MM, Brown GC, Brown HC, et al. A value-based medicine analysis of ranibizumab for the treatment of subfoveal neovascular macular degeneration. Ophthalmology 2008; 115: 1039–45

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Common drug review: ranibizumab (Lucentis®–Novartis Pharmaceuticals Canada Inc.). Indication: age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Overview of CDR clinical and pharmacoeconomic reports August 2008. Ottawa (ON): CADTH, 2008 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.cadth.ca/media/cdr/relatedinfo/cdr_trans_Lucentis_overview_Jul-30-08_e.pdf [Accessed 2010 May 7]

    Google Scholar 

  26. Hurley SF, Matthews JP, Guymer RH. Cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Cost Eff Resour Alloc 2008 Jun 24; 6: 12

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Neubauer AS, Holz FG, Schrader W, et al. Cost-utility analysis of ranibizumab (Lucentis) in neovascular macular degeneration. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd 2007; 224: 727–32

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Brown A, Hodge W, Kymes S, et al. Management of neovascular age-related macular degeneration: systematic drug class review and economic evaluation. Ottawa (ON): Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, 2008

    Google Scholar 

  29. Fletcher EC, Lade RJ, Adewoyin T, et al. Computerized model of cost-utility analysis for treatment of age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology 2008; 115: 2192–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Hernandez-Pastor LJ, Ortega A, Garcia-Layana A, et al. Cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab compared with photodynamic treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Clin Ther 2008; 30: 2436–51

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Hernandez-Pastor LJ, Ortega A, Garcia-Layana A, et al. Cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab compared with pegaptanib in neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2009; 248: 467–76

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Smiddy WE. Relative cost of a line of vision in age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology 2007; 114: 847–54

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. No authors listed. Photodynamic therapy of subfoveal choroidal neovascularization in age-relatedmacular degeneration with verteporfin: one-year results of 2 randomized clinical trials-TAP report. Treatment of Age-related macular degeneration with Photodynamic therapy (TAP) Study Group [published erratum appears in Arch Ophthalmol 2000; 118 (4): 488]. Arch Ophthalmol 1999; 117 (10): 1329–45

  34. Greiner RA. Cost of care for patients with age-related macular degeneration in Switzerland and cost-effectiveness of treatment with verteporfin therapy. Semin Ophthalmol 2001; 16: 218–22

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Australian Government, Department of Health and Ageing. Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC). Photodynamic therapy with verteporfin for macular degeneration. Canberra (ACT): MSAC, 2001

    Google Scholar 

  36. Muslera E, Natal C. Cost-effectiveness of photodynamic therapy in age-related macular degeneration. Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol 2006; 81: 199–204

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Cohen SY, Bremond-Gignac D, Quentel G, et al. Costeffectiveness sequential modeling of ranibizumab versus usual care in age-related macular degeneration. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2008; 246: 1527–34

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Smiddy WE. Economic implications of current age-related macular degeneration treatments. Ophthalmology 2009; 116: 481–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Augustovski F, Colantonio L, Pichon Riviere A. Vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors (pegaptanib, ranibizumab and bevacizumab) in age-related macular degeneration treatment. Buenos Aires: Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy, 2007

    Google Scholar 

  40. Australian Government, Department of Health and Ageing. Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Public summary document: ranibizumab. Canberra (ACT): Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, 2007 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/8273CE4F07D2021FCA2572F800047B3B/$File/Ranibizumab.pdf [Accessed 2010 Apr 27]

    Google Scholar 

  41. Scottish Medicines Consortium. Ranibizumab 10 mg/ml solution for intravitreal injection (Lucentis®). Glasgow: Scottish Medicines Consortium, 2007

  42. Regillo CD, Brown DM, Abraham P, et al. Randomized, double-masked, sham-controlled trial of ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration: PIER study year 1. Am J Ophthalmol 2008; 145: 239–48

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Lalwani GA, Rosenfeld PJ, Fung AE, et al. A variabledosing regimen with intravitreal ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration: year 2 of the PrONTO Study. Am J Ophthalmol 2009; 148: 43–58

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Fung AE, Lalwani GA, Rosenfeld PJ, et al. An optical coherence tomography-guided, variable dosing regimen with intravitreal ranibizumab (Lucentis) for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Am J Ophthalmol 2007; 143: 566–83

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Steinbrook R. The price of sight: ranibizumab, bevacizumab, and the treatment of macular degeneration. N Engl J Med 2006; 355: 1409–12

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Yang YC. Developments in treatment of AMD: therapeutic intervention — anti VEGF therapy [online]. Available from URL: http://evslarchive.moorfields.nhs.uk/amd_docs_0607/Anti%20VEGF%20Tx%20.pdf [Accessed 2010 Jun 10]

    Google Scholar 

  47. Raftery J, Clegg A, Jones J, et al. Ranibizumab (Lucentis) versus bevacizumab (Avastin): modelling cost effectiveness. Br J Ophthalmol 2007; 91: 1244–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Tufail A, Patel PJ, Egan C, et al. Bevacizumab for neovascular age related macular degeneration (ABC trial): multicentre randomised double masked study. BMJ 2010 Jun 9; 340: c2459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Andriolo RB, Puga ME, Belfort Jr R, et al. Bevacizumab for ocular neovascular diseases: a systematic review. Sao Paulo Med J 2009; 127: 84–91

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. National Eye Institute (NEI). Comparison of age-related macular degeneration treatments trials: Lucentis-Avastin trial [ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00593450]. US National Institutes of Health, ClinicalTrials.gov [online]. Available from URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov [Accessed 2010 Nov 26]

    Google Scholar 

  51. The Bandolier Group. Lucentis versus avastin: needs must or devil drives? [online]. Available from URL: http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/band159/b159-5.html [Accessed 2009 Oct 13]

    Google Scholar 

  52. Kahook MY, Liu L, Ruzycki P, et al. High-molecularweight aggregates in repackaged bevacizumab. Retina 2010; 30: 887–92

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Olsen TW. Treatment of exudative age-related macular degeneration: many factors to consider. Am J Ophthalmol 2007; 144: 281–3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Bakri SJ, Snyder MR, Reid JM, et al. Pharmacokinetics of intravitreal ranibizumab (Lucentis). Ophthalmology 2007; 114: 2179–82

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Bakri SJ, Snyder MR, Reid JM, et al. Pharmacokinetics of intravitreal bevacizumab (Avastin). Ophthalmology 2007; 114: 855–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Boyer DS, Heier JS, Brown DM, et al. A phase IIIb study to evaluate the safety of ranibizumab in subjects with neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology 2009; 116: 1731–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Agence francaise de securite sanitaire des produits de sante (AFSSAPS). Utilisation hors AMM d’Avastin®-Point d’information [online]. Available from URL: http://www.afssaps.fr/Infos-de-securite/Points-d-information-Points-detape/Utilisation-hors-AMM-d-Avastin-R-Point-d-information/(language)/fre-FR [Accessed 2009 Oct 20]

  58. Fung AE, Rosenfeld PJ, Reichel E. The International Intravitreal Bevacizumab Safety Survey: using the internet to assess drug safety worldwide. Br J Ophthalmol 2006; 90: 1344–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Williams GA. What are the legal issues regarding the use of off-label drugs? Retina Today 2007 Jan/Feb: 43–7

    Google Scholar 

  60. MHRA and CHM. Hot topics: off-label use of unlicensed medicines. Prescribers’ responsibilities. Drug Safety Update 2009; 2: 6–7

    Google Scholar 

  61. Hopley C, Salkeld G, Wang JJ, et al. Cost utility of screening and treatment for early age related macular degeneration with zinc and antioxidants. Br J Ophthalmol 2004; 88: 450–4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Rein DB, Saaddine JB, Wittenborn JS, et al. Technical appendix: cost-effectiveness of vitamin therapy for agerelated macular degeneration. Ophthalmology 2007; 114: e13–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Rein DB, Saaddine JB, Wittenborn JS, et al. Cost-effectiveness of vitamin therapy for age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology 2007; 114: 1319–26

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care. Photodynamic treatment for macular degeneration. Stockholm: Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care, 2001

    Google Scholar 

  65. Scottish Medicines Consortium. Pegaptanib 0.3 mg, solution for intravitreal injection (Macugen®). Glasgow: Scottish Medicines Consortium, 2006

    Google Scholar 

  66. Australian Government, Department of Health and Ageing. Public summary document: verteporfin. Canberra (ACT): Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, 2005

    Google Scholar 

  67. Oliva G. Photodynamic therapy in the treatment of age-related macular degeneration (update). Barcelona: Catalan Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Research, 2006

    Google Scholar 

  68. National Agency for Accreditation and Evaluation in Health (ANAES). Treatment of age-related macular degeneration. Paris: ANAES, 2001

    Google Scholar 

  69. Meads C, Moore D. The clinical effectiveness and cost utility of photodynamic therapy for age-related macular degeneration: REP Committee draft report with amendments. Birmingham: Regional Evaluation Panel (REP), 2001 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.rep.bham.ac.uk/2001/Age_related_Macular_Degeneration.pdf [Accessed 2010 Nov 26]

    Google Scholar 

  70. Attebo K, Mitchell P, Smith W. Visual acuity and the causes of visual loss in Australia: the Blue Mountains Eye Study. Ophthalmology 1996; 103: 357–64

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. O’Shea JG. Age-related macular degeneration: a leading cause of blindness. Med J Aust 1996; 165: 561–4

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Owsley C, Sloane ME. Contrast sensitivity, acuity, and the perception of ‘real-world’ targets. Br J Ophthalmol 1987; 71: 791–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Bandello F, Augustin A, Sahel JA, et al. Association between visual acuity and medical and non-medical costs in patients with wet age-related macular degeneration in France, Germany and Italy. Drugs Aging 2008; 25: 255–68

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Royal Group of Hospitals Trust (UK). A randomised controlled trial of alternative treatments to inhibit VEGF in age-related choroidal neovascularisation [ISRCTN92166560]. ISRCTN Register [online]. Available from URL: http://controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN92166560/ISRCTN92166560 [Accessed 2010 May 1]

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

All authors participated in the development and writing of the manuscript, and approved the final article for publication. The authors take full responsibility for the content of the article and would like to thank Dr Annette Keith (Oxford PharmaGenesis™ Ltd) for carrying out the initial literature searches, providing the authors with an overview of the search findings, and collating and incorporating comments from all authors. This editorial assistance was funded by Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland. This analysis was supported by Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland.

PM has received consultancy fees from Novartis Pharma AG, Pfizer, Allergan and Solvay and has also been paid lecture fees/honoraria by these companies. LA has received an unrestricted grant from Novartis. RW is an employee of Oxford PharmaGenesis™ Ltd, which has received project funding from Novartis Pharma AG. MG and ST are employees of Novartis Pharma AG.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Discipline of Ophthalmology, University of Sydney, Westmead Hospital, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia

    Paul Mitchell

  2. Department of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

    Lieven Annemans

  3. Research Evaluation Unit, Oxford PharmaGenesis Ltd, Oxford, UK

    Richard White

  4. Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland

    Meghan Gallagher

  5. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, New Jersey, USA

    Simu Thomas

Authors
  1. Paul Mitchell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lieven Annemans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Richard White
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Meghan Gallagher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Simu Thomas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul Mitchell.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mitchell, P., Annemans, L., White, R. et al. Cost Effectiveness of Treatments for Wet Age-Related Macular Degeneration. Pharmacoeconomics 29, 107–131 (2011). https://doi.org/10.2165/11585520-000000000-00000

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/11585520-000000000-00000

Keywords

Search

Navigation