Cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab compared with pegaptanib in neovascular age-related macular degeneration

  • Luis Javier Hernández-Pastor
  • Ana Ortega
  • Alfredo García-Layana
  • Joaquín Giráldez
Retinal Disorders

Abstract

Objective

To assess the cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab compared with pegaptanib in the treatment of patients with minimally classic/occult neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD), from a societal perspective in Spain.

Methods

We constructed a Markov model with five states defined by visual acuity (VA) in the better-seeing eye (Snellen scale): VA >20/40, ≤20/40 to >20/80, ≤20/80 to >20/200, ≤20/200 to >20/400, ≤20/400, and an additional death state. Two cohorts of patients were distributed along the VA states, and treated with either ranibizumab or pegaptanib. Transition probabilities assigned for movement between these states with both drugs were obtained from published randomized clinical trials. Medical costs related to AMD treatment and follow-up, medical costs related to AMD comorbidities, and non-medical-related costs were taken into account. Costs (2008 Euro), health outcomes (Quality-adjusted life years—QALYs), both discounted at a 3.5% annual rate, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER: €/QALY), were determined for a lifetime horizon in the base case analysis. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore different scenarios and assumptions in the model.

Results

Treating patients with varying degrees of visual impairment with monthly ranibizumab instead of pegaptanib was €71,206 more costly and provided 2.437 additional QALYs (€29,224/QALY). When administered on an as-needed basis, as in the Prospective Optical Coherence Tomography Imaging of Patients with Neovascular AMD Treated with Intraocular Ranibizumab (PrONTO) trial, the cost per QALY gained with ranibizumab was reduced to €4,623.

Conclusions

The cost per QALY gained with monthly ranibizumab compared with pegaptanib in the minimally classic/occult neovascular AMD population is just below the €30,000 threshold below which new drugs are sometimes regarded as cost-effective strategies in Spain. In this model, the key variables with greater impact on the cost-effectiveness results were the selected time horizon and the chosen extrapolation method, the source for data on pegaptanib efficacy and the number of ranibizumab injections. When administered on an as-needed basis, ranibizumab was a cost-effective strategy compared to pegaptanib in this population.

Keywords

Age-related macular degeneration Ranibizumab Pegaptanib Cost-effectiveness Cost-utility 

References

  1. 1.
    Resnikoff S, Pascolini D, Etya’ale D, Kocur I, Pararajasegaram R, Pokharel G, Mariotti S (2004) Global data on visual impairment in the year 2002. Bull World Health Organ 82:844–849PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jager RD, Mieler WF, Miller JW (2008) Age-related macular degeneration. N Engl J Med 358:2606–2617CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ip MS, Scott IU, Brown GC, Brown MM, Ho AC, Huang SS, Recchia FM (2008) Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor pharmacotherapy for age-related macular degeneration: a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology 115:1837–1846CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gragoudas ES, Adamis AP, Cunningham ET Jr, Feinsod M, Guyer DR (2004) Pegaptanib for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. N Engl J Med 351:2805–2816CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chakravarthy U, Adamis AP, Cunningham ET Jr, Goldbaum M, Guyer DR, Katz B, Patel M (2006) Year 2 efficacy results of 2 randomized controlled clinical trials of pegaptanib for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology 113(1508):e1501–e1525Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rosenfeld PJ, Brown DM, Heier JS, Boyer DS, Kaiser PK, Chung CY, Kim RY (2006) Ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. N Engl J Med 355:1419–1431CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brown DM, Kaiser PK, Michels M, Soubrane G, Heier JS, Kim RY, Sy JP, Schneider S (2006) Ranibizumab versus verteporfin for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. N Engl J Med 355:1432–1444CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bashshur ZF, Bazarbachi A, Schakal A, Haddad ZA, El Haibi CP, Noureddin BN (2006) Intravitreal bevacizumab for the management of choroidal neovascularization in age-related macular degeneration. Am J Ophthalmol 142:1–9CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Spaide RF, Laud K, Fine HF, Klancnik JM Jr, Meyerle CB, Yannuzzi LA, Sorenson J, Slakter J, Fisher YL, Cooney MJ (2006) Intravitreal bevacizumab treatment of choroidal neovascularization secondary to age-related macular degeneration. Retina 26:383–390CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Avery RL, Pieramici DJ, Rabena MD, Castellarin AA, Nasir MA, Giust MJ (2006) Intravitreal bevacizumab (Avastin) for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology 113(363–372):e365Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schouten JS, La Heij EC, Webers CA, Lundqvist IJ, Hendrikse F (2009) A systematic review on the effect of bevacizumab in exudative age-related macular degeneration. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 247:1–11CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lynch SS, Cheng CM (2007) Bevacizumab for neovascular ocular diseases. Ann Pharmacother 41:614–625CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bashshur ZF, Haddad ZA, Schakal A, Jaafar RF, Saab M, Noureddin BN (2008) Intravitreal bevacizumab for treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration: a one-year prospective study. Am J Ophthalmol 145:249–256CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials (CATT): Lucentis - Avastin Trial. National Eye Institute. Available at: http://www.nei.nih.gov/CATT. Accesed: 23rd of June, 2009
  15. 15.
    Brown GC, Brown MM, Brown HC, Kindermann S, Sharma S (2007) A value-based medicine comparison of interventions for subfoveal neovascular macular degeneration. Ophthalmology 114:1170–1178CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hernandez-Pastor L, Ortega A, Garcia-Layana A, Giraldez J (2008) Cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab compared with photodynamic treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Clin Ther 30:2436–2451CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Briggs A, Sculpher M (1998) An introduction to Markov modelling for economic evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics 13:397–409CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, Drummond M, McCabe C (2006) Whither trial-based economic evaluation for health care decision making? Health Econ 15:677–687CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Arias L, Armada F, Donate J, Garcia-Arumi J, Giralt J, Pazos B, Pinero A, Martinez F, Mondejar JJ, Ortega I, Zlateva G, Buggage R (2008) Delay in treating age-related macular degeneration in Spain is associated with progressive vision loss. Eye 23:326–333CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tablas de supervivencia de la población española. Instituto Nacional de Estadística [National Statistics Institute]. Available at: http://www.ine.es/jaxi/tabla.do?path=/t20/p319a/1992-2005/l0/&file=01001.px&type=pcaxis. Accesed: 4th of June 2009
  21. 21.
    Drummond M, Sculpher M, Torrance G, O’Brien B, Stoddart G (2005) Economic evaluation using decision analytic modelling. In: Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes, 3rd ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 277–314Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cruess AF, Zlateva G, Xu X, Soubrane G, Pauleikhoff D, Lotery A, Mones J, Buggage R, Schaefer C, Knight T, Goss TF (2008) Economic burden of bilateral neovascular age-related macular degeneration: multi-country observational study. Pharmacoeconomics 26:57–73CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pesos españoles y coste SNS. Año 2005. Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo. [Health Ministry]. Available at: http://www.msc.es. Accesed: 26th december 2008
  24. 24.
    Indice de precios de consumo. Instituto Nacional de Estadística [National Statistics Institute]. Available at: http://www.ine.es/daco/ipc.htm. Accesed: 4th june 2009
  25. 25.
    Drummond M, Sculpher M, Torrance G, O’Brien B, Stoddart G (2005) Basic types of economic evaluation. In: Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes, 3rd ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 7–26Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Brown GC, Sharma S, Brown MM, Kistler J (2000) Utility values and age-related macular degeneration. Arch Ophthalmol 118:47–51PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    NICE. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal, june 2008. Available at: http://www.nice.org.uk. Accesed: 26th december 2008
  28. 28.
    Briggs AH (2000) Handling uncertainty in cost-effectiveness models. Pharmacoeconomics 17:479–500CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mills E, Heels-Ansdell D, Kelly S, Guyatt G (2007) A randomized trial of Pegaptanib sodium for age-related macular degeneration used an innovative design to explore disease-modifying effects. J Clin Epidemiol 60:456–460CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Fung AE, Lalwani GA, Rosenfeld PJ, Dubovy SR, Michels S, Feuer WJ, Puliafito CA, Davis JL, Flynn HW Jr, Esquiabro M (2007) An optical coherence tomography-guided, variable dosing regimen with intravitreal ranibizumab (Lucentis) for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Am J Ophthalmol 143:566–583CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rosenfeld PJ (2007) Ranibizumab: The Pronto study. American Academy of Ophthalmology. New Orleans, 10–13th November 2007Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Quiram PA, Hassan TS, Williams GA (2007) Treatment of naive lesions in neovascular age-related macular degeneration with pegaptanib. Retina 27:851–856CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Birch S, Gafni A (2006) Information created to evade reality (ICER): things we should not look to for answers. Pharmacoeconomics 24:1121–1131CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    McCabe C, Claxton K, Culyer AJ (2008) The NICE cost-effectiveness threshold: what it is and what that means. Pharmacoeconomics 26:733–744CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Soto Alvarez J (2004) New drugs in Spain – when are they to be considered cost-effective alternatives and profitable investments for the National Health System? Farm Hosp 28:299–304 [In Spanish]PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Brown DM, Regillo CD (2007) Anti-VEGF Agents in the Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration: Applying Clinical Trial Results to the Treatment of Everyday Patients. Am J Ophthalmol 144:627–637CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bhisitkul RB (2006) Vascular endothelial growth factor biology: clinical implications for ocular treatments. Br J Ophthalmol 90:1542–1547CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Drummond M, Sculpher M (2005) Common methodological flaws in economic evaluations. Med Care 43:5–14CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Raftery J, Clegg A, Jones J, Tan SC, Lotery A (2007) Ranibizumab (Lucentis) versus bevacizumab (Avastin): modelling cost effectiveness. Br J Ophthalmol 91:1244–1246CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luis Javier Hernández-Pastor
    • 1
  • Ana Ortega
    • 1
  • Alfredo García-Layana
    • 2
  • Joaquín Giráldez
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PharmacyClínica Universidad de NavarraPamplonaSpain
  2. 2.Department of OphthalmologyClínica Universidad de NavarraPamplonaSpain

Personalised recommendations