, Volume 34, Issue 3, pp 259–272 | Cite as

Cost-Effectiveness Models in Age-Related Macular Degeneration: Issues and Challenges

Review Article


Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a common ophthalmic condition that can have few symptoms in its early stage but can progress to major visual impairment. While there are no treatments for early-stage AMD, there are multiple modalities of treatment for advanced disease. Given the increasing prevalence of the disease, there are dozens of analyses of cost effectiveness of AMD treatments, but methods and approaches vary broadly. The goal of this review was to identify, characterize, and critique published models in AMD and provide guidance for their interpretation. After a literature review was performed to identify studies, and exclusion criteria applied to limit the review to studies comparing treatments for AMD, we compared methods across the 36 studies meeting the review criteria. To some extent, variation was related to targeting different audiences or acknowledging the most appropriate population for a given treatment. However, the review identified potential areas of uncertainty and difficulty in interpretation, particularly regarding duration of observation periods and the importance of visual acuity as an endpoint or a proxy for patient-reported utilities. We urge thoughtful consideration of these study characteristics when comparing results.


Compliance with Ethical Standards


No funding was received for this study. Jordana Schmier and Carolyn Hulme-Lowe are employees of Exponent, Inc., a scientific and engineering consulting firm.

Author contributions

Both authors developed an outline and approach for the study, and Carolyn Hulme-Lowe conducted the initial literature search. Both authors reviewed and abstracted articles, and Jordana Schmier drafted the first version of the manuscript. Both authors worked to revise the manuscript and provided their approval of the final version.


  1. 1.
    American Academy of Ophthalmology. Preferred practice pattern: age-related macular degeneration. San Francisco: American Academy of Ophthalmology; 2015.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Klein R, Klein BE, Jensen SC, Cruickshanks KJ. The relationship of ocular factors to the incidence and progression of age-related maculopathy [see comments]. Arch Ophthalmol. 1998;116(4):506–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tomany SC, Wang JJ, Van Leeuwen R, Klein R, Mitchell P, Vingerling JR, et al. Risk factors for incident age-related macular degeneration: pooled findings from 3 continents. Ophthalmology. 2004;111(7):1280–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Age-Related Eye Disease Study Research Group. The effect of five-year zinc supplementation on serum zinc, serum cholesterol and hematocrit in persons randomly assigned to treatment group in the age-related eye disease study: AREDS Report No. 7. J Nutr. 2002;132(4):697–702.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chang CW, Chu G, Hinz BJ, Greve MD. Current use of dietary supplementation in patients with age-related macular degeneration. Can J Ophthalmol. 2003;38(1):27–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Halpern MT, Schmier JK, Covert D, Venkataraman K. Resource utilization and costs of age-related macular degeneration. Health Care Financ Rev. 2006;27(3):37–47.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schmier JK, Covert DW, Lau EC. Patterns and costs associated with progression of age-related macular degeneration. Am J Ophthalmol. 2012;154(4):675–81 (e1).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schmier JK, Halpern MT, Covert D, Delgado J, Sharma S. Impact of visual impairment on use of caregiving by individuals with age-related macular degeneration. Retina. 2006;26(9):1056–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schmier JK, Halpern MT, Covert DW, Delgado J, Sharma S. Impact of visual impairment on service and device use by individuals with age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Disabil Rehabil. 2006;28(21):1331–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schmier JK, Jones ML, Halpern MT. The burden of age-related macular degeneration. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24(4):319–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Foster WJ, Tufail W, Issa AM. The quality of pharmacoeconomic evaluations of age-related macular degeneration therapeutics: a systematic review and quantitative appraisal of the evidence. Br J Ophthalmol. 2010;94(9):1118–26.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hodge W, Brown A, Kymes S, Cruess A, Blackhouse G, Hopkins R, et al. Pharmacologic management of neovascular age-related macular degeneration: systematic review of economic evidence and primary economic evaluation. Can J Ophthalmol. 2010;45(3):223–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kymes SM. An introduction to decision analysis in the economic evaluation of the prevention and treatment of vision-related diseases. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2008;15(2):76–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mitchell P, Annemans L, White R, Gallagher M, Thomas S. Cost effectiveness of treatments for wet age-related macular degeneration. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29(2):107–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bojke L, Claxton K, Sculpher M, Palmer S. Characterizing structural uncertainty in decision analytic models: a review and application of methods. Value Health. 2009;12(5):739–49.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mauskopf J. Modelling technique, structural assumptions, input parameter values: which has the most impact on the results of a cost-effectiveness analysis? Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32(6):521–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hernandez-Pastor LJ, Ortega A, Garcia-Layana A, Giraldez J. Cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab compared with photodynamic treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Clin Ther. 2008;30(12):2436–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hernandez-Pastor LJ, Ortega A, Garcia-Layana A, Giraldez J. Cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab compared with pegaptanib in neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2010;248(4):467–76.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Muslera E, Natal C. Cost-effectiveness of photodynamic therapy in age-related macular degeneration [in Spanish]. Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol. 2006;81(4):199–204.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Neubauer AS, Holz FG, Sauer S, Wasmuth T, Hirneiss C, Kampik A, et al. Cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab for the treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration in Germany: model analysis from the perspective of Germany’s statutory health insurance system. Clin Ther. 2010;32(7):1343–56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Neubauer AS, Liakopoulos S, van Meurs JC, Kirchhof B. Cost-effectiveness of autologous retinal pigment epithelium and choroid translocation in neovascular AMD. Int J Ophthalmol. 2010;3(3):228–33.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    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(9):2096–106 (discussion 4–5).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Trevithick J, Massel D, Robertson JM, Tomany S, Wall R. Model study of AREDS antioxidant supplementation of AMD compared to Visudyne: a dominant strategy? Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2004;11(5):337–46.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hopley C, Salkeld G, Mitchell P. Cost utility of photodynamic therapy for predominantly classic neovascular age related macular degeneration. Br J Ophthalmol. 2004;88(8):982–7.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Studnicka J, Rihova B, Rencova E, Rozsival P, Dubska Z, Chrapek O, et al. Cost and effectiveness of therapy for wet age-related macular degeneration in routine clinical practice. Ophthalmologica. 2013;230(1):34–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Athanasakis K, Fragoulakis V, Tsiantou V, Masaoutis P, Maniadakis N, Kyriopoulos J. Cost-effectiveness analysis of ranibizumab versus verteporfin photodynamic therapy, pegaptanib sodium, and best supportive care for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration in Greece. Clin Ther. 2012;34(2):446–56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Elshout M, van der Reis MI, Webers CA, Schouten JS. The cost-utility of aflibercept for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration compared to bevacizumab and ranibizumab and the influence of model parameters. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2014;252(12):1911–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Greiner RA. Cost of care for patients with age-related macular degeneration in Switzerland and cost-effectiveness of treatment with verteporfin therapy. Sem Ophthalmol. 2001;16(4):218–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Reddy P, Gao X, Barnes R, Fairchild C, Boci K, Waycaster C, et al. The economic impact of blue-light filtering intraocular lenses on age-related macular degeneration associated with cataract surgery: a third-party payer’s perspective. Curr Med Res Opin. 2006;22(7):1311–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gower EW, Cassard SD, Bass EB, Schein OD, Bressler NM. A cost-effectiveness analysis of three treatments for age-related macular degeneration. Retina. 2010;30(2):212–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hurley SF, Matthews JP, Guymer RH. Cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2008;6:12.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Brown MM, Brown GC, Brown HC, Peet J. A value-based medicine analysis of ranibizumab for the treatment of subfoveal neovascular macular degeneration. Ophthalmology. 2008;115(6):1039–45 (e5).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Butt T, Patel PJ, Tufail A, Rubin GS. Modelling cost effectiveness in neovascular age-related macular degeneration: the impact of using contrast sensitivity vs. visual acuity. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2014;12(3):289–97.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Brown GC, Brown MM, Campanella J, Beauchamp GR. The cost-utility of photodynamic therapy in eyes with neovascular macular degeneration: a value-based reappraisal with 5-year data. Am J Ophthalmol. 2005;140(4):679–87.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Busbee BG, Brown MM, Brown GC, Sharma S. CME review: a cost-utility analysis of laser photocoagulation for extrafoveal choroidal neovascularization. Retina. 2003;23(3):279–87 (quiz 443–4).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Fletcher EC, Lade RJ, Adewoyin T, Chong NV. Computerized model of cost-utility analysis for treatment of age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology. 2008;115(12):2192–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Javitt JC, Zlateva GP, Earnshaw SR, Pleil AM, Graham CN, Brogan AJ, 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(4):563–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sharma S, Brown GC, Brown MM, Hollands H, Shah GK. The cost-effectiveness of photodynamic therapy for fellow eyes with subfoveal choroidal neovascularization secondary to age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology. 2001;108(11):2051–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    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(9):1107–12.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Finger RP, Fenwick E, Hirneiss CW, Hsueh A, Guymer RH, Lamoureux EL, et al. Visual impairment as a function of visual acuity in both eyes and its impact on patient reported preferences. PLoS One. 2013;8(12):e81042.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Butt T, Lee A, Lee C, Tufail A, UK AMD EMR Study Group. The cost-effectiveness of initiating ranibizumab therapy in eyes with neovascular AMD with good vision: an economic model using real-world outcomes. BMJ Open. 2015;5(5):e006535.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Colquitt JL, Jones J, Tan SC, Takeda A, Clegg AJ, Price A. Ranibizumab and pegaptanib for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2008;12(16):iii–iv ix-201.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Meads C, Salas C, Roberts T, Moore D, Fry-Smith A, Hyde C. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sharma S, Bakal J, Sharma SM, Covert D, Shah GK. Drug pricing for a novel treatment for wet macular degeneration: using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios to ensure societal value. Can J Ophthalmol. 2005;40(3):369–77.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Brown GC, Brown MM, Lieske HB, Lieske PA, Brown KS, Lane SS. Comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the implantable miniature telescope. Ophthalmology. 2011;118(9):1834–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Brown GC, Brown MM, Sharma S, Brown H, Tasman W. Incremental cost effectiveness of laser photocoagulation for subfoveal choroidal neovascularization. Ophthalmology. 2000;107(7):1374–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Rein DB, Saaddine JB, Wittenborn JS, Wirth KE, Hoerger TJ, Narayan KM, et al. Cost-effectiveness of vitamin therapy for age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology. 2007;114(7):1319–26.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Stein JD, Newman-Casey PA, Mrinalini T, Lee PP, Hutton DW. Cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab and ranibizumab for newly diagnosed neovascular macular degeneration (an American Ophthalmological Society thesis). Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 2013;111:56–69.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Stein JD, Newman-Casey PA, Mrinalini T, Lee PP, Hutton DW. Cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab and ranibizumab for newly diagnosed neovascular macular degeneration. Ophthalmology. 2014;121(4):936–45.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    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 (Lond). 2007;21(12):1455–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Raftery J, Clegg A, Jones J, Tan SC, Lotery A. Ranibizumab (Lucentis) versus bevacizumab (Avastin): modelling cost effectiveness. Br J Ophthalmol. 2007;91(9):1244–6.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Wolowacz SE, Roskell N, Kelly S, Maciver FM, Brand CS. Cost effectiveness of pegaptanib for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration in the UK. Pharmacoeconomics. 2007;25(10):863–79.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Patel PJ, Chen FK, Da Cruz L, Rubin GS, Tufail A, ABC Trial Study Group. Contrast sensitivity outcomes in the ABC Trial: a randomized trial of bevacizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52(6):3089–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Patel JJ, Mendes MA, Bounthavong M, Christopher ML, Boggie D, Morreale AP. Cost-utility analysis of bevacizumab versus ranibizumab in neovascular age-related macular degeneration using a Markov model. J Eval Clin Pract. 2012;18(2):247–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Caro JJ, Briggs AH, Siebert U, Kuntz KM, ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force. Modeling good research practices—overview: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-1. Value Health. 2012;15(6):796–803.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Caro JJ, Briggs AH, Siebert U, Kuntz KM, ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force. Modeling good research practices—overview: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-1. Med Decis Making. 2012;32(5):667–77.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Shah AR, Del Priore LV. Progressive visual loss in subfoveal exudation in age-related macular degeneration: a meta-analysis using Lineweaver-Burke plots. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007;143(1):83–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Espallargues M, Czoski-Murray CJ, Bansback NJ, Carlton J, Lewis GM, Hughes LA, et al. The impact of age-related macular degeneration on health status utility values. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46(11):4016–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Brown GC. Vision and quality-of-life. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 1999;97:473–511.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Sharma S, Brown GC, Brown MM, Hollands H, Robins R, Shah GK. Validity of the time trade-off and standard gamble methods of utility assessment in retinal patients. Br J Ophthalmol. 2002;86(5):493–6.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Au Eong KG, Chan EW, Luo N, Wong SH, Tan NW, Lim TH, et al. Validity of EuroQOL-5D, time trade-off, and standard gamble for age-related macular degeneration in the Singapore population. Eye (Lond). 2012;26(3):379–88.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Hirneiss C. The impact of a better-seeing eye and a worse-seeing eye on vision-related quality of life. Clin Ophthalmol. 2014;8:1703–9.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Pearson I, Rycroft C, Irving A, Ainsworth C, Wittrup-Jensen K. A systematic literature review of utility weights in wet age-related macular degeneration. J Med Econ. 2013;16(11):1307–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Evans K, Law SK, Walt J, Buchholz P, Hansen J. The quality of life impact of peripheral versus central vision loss with a focus on glaucoma versus age-related macular degeneration. Clin Ophthalmol. 2009;3:433–45.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Brown MM, Brown GC, Sharma S, Landy J, Bakal J. Quality of life with visual acuity loss from diabetic retinopathy and age-related macular degeneration. Arch Ophthalmol. 2002;120(4):481–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Siegel JE, Torrance GW, Russell LB, Luce BR, Weinstein MC, Gold MR. Guidelines for pharmacoeconomic studies. Recommendations from the panel on cost effectiveness in health and medicine. Panel on cost Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Pharmacoeconomics. 1997;11(2):159–68.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Brown MM, Brown GC, Sharma S, Garrett S. Evidence-based medicine, utilities, and quality of life. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 1999;10(3):221–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Sharma S, Brown GC, Brown MM, Shah GK, Snow K, Brown H, et al. Converting visual acuity to utilities. Can J Ophthalmol. 2000;35(5):267–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Kaiser PK. Prospective evaluation of visual acuity assessment: a comparison of snellen versus ETDRS charts in clinical practice (An AOS Thesis). Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 2009;107:311–24.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Mones J, Rubin GS. Contrast sensitivity as an outcome measure in patients with subfoveal choroidal neovascularisation due to age-related macular degeneration. Eye (Lond). 2005;19(11):1142–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Brown GC, Sharma S, Brown MM, Kistler J. Utility values and age-related macular degeneration. Arch Ophthalmol. 2000;118(1):47–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Brown MM, Brown GC, Sharma S, Landy J. Health care economic analyses and value-based medicine. Surv Ophthalmol. 2003;48(2):204–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Exponent, Inc.AlexandriaUSA

Personalised recommendations