Cost Effectiveness of Treatments for Diabetic Retinopathy: A Systematic Literature Review
- 113 Downloads
Diabetic retinopathy (DR) affects approximately one-third of people diagnosed with diabetes, can be sight-threatening, and generates significant human and economic burden. Over the last 2 decades, newer therapies have emerged, offering significant clinical benefits, however at a cost. Given the scarcity of available budgets, the cost effectiveness of these newer treatments is of vital importance to policy makers.
A systematic review was conducted in the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, HEED and CRD databases to find and evaluate economic evaluations assessing the cost effectiveness of alterative DR treatments. Studies were assessed for their eligibility, findings and quality, and are presented in this systematic review.
Of the 5254 studies retrieved from the literature search, 17 were included in this review. For patients with proliferative DR, when early pars plana vitrectomy was compared with pan-retinal laser photocoagulation, similar cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) was observed between the two. Treatment with either intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) or intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) falls within acceptable cost-effectiveness thresholds in the diabetic macular oedema (DMO) population; however, in the non-DMO population, the marginal benefit of IVR or IVB in relation to the marginal cost relative to laser does not justify their use. Among the anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapies, IVB appears more attractive from an economic point of view due to its lower cost. For patients with DMO, studies indicate that a combination therapy of IVR or IVB with laser and, to a lesser degree, as monotherapy, are cost effective relative to laser monotherapy; IVR plus laser is cost effective relative to laser plus triamcinolone; and laser combined with triamcinolone injections is reportedly more cost effective over IVR for pseudophakic eyes only. Moreover, fluocinolone implants appear cost effective compared with sham implants, or when treating refractory DMO. IVR administered either pro re nata (PRN) or as ‘treat and extend’ dominated intravitreal aflibercept (IVA) in a few studies. On the other hand, IVR monotherapy or with laser (as well as IVA) does not compare favourably relative to IVB monotherapy or with laser.
Interpretation of cost-effectiveness data should be treated with caution in this case; details of the therapeutic regimen, such as dosage and frequency, and clinical efficacy of the treatments should be considered in relation to policy-making decisions. Given the scarcity of resources, the ever-increasing significance of health technology assessment, and the substantial differences in the methodologies of the studies presented in this review, there is a pressing need for more advanced and standardised approaches to assessing the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of the emerging anti-VEGF pharmacotherapies for the treatment of DMO.
The authors are grateful to Mr. Alexander Charonis, MD, for his valuable advice while preparing this manuscript.
EK conducted the literature search and data assembly and collection, and wrote the first draft. NM reviewed and supervised all activities related to this systematic review. Both authors contributed materially to the research and manuscript preparation.
No funding was received for the preparation of this article.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
Professor Maniadakis and Dr Konstantakopoulou have no conflicts of interest directly relevant to the content of this article.
- 5.Early photocoagulation for diabetic retinopathy. ETDRS report number 9. Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study Research Group. Ophthalmology. 1991;98(5 Suppl):766–85.Google Scholar
- 6.Photocoagulation treatment of proliferative diabetic retinopathy. Clinical application of Diabetic Retinopathy Study (DRS) findings, DRS report number 8. The Diabetic Retinopathy Study Research Group. Ophthalmology. 1981;88(7):583–600.Google Scholar
- 13.Rajendram R, Fraser-Bell S, Kaines A, Michaelides M, Hamilton RD, Esposti SD, et al. A 2-year prospective randomized controlled trial of intravitreal bevacizumab or laser therapy (BOLT) in the management of diabetic macular edema: 24-month data: report 3. Arch Ophthalmol. 2012;130(8):972–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network. A randomized trial comparing intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide and focal/grid photocoagulation for diabetic macular edema. Ophthalmology. 2008;115(9):1447–9 (1449.e1–10).Google Scholar
- 27.National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant for treating chronic diabetic macular oedema after an inadequate response to prior therapy. Technology appraisal guidance TA3012013, 25 Aug 2018.Google Scholar
- 35.Ofman JJ, Sullivan SD, Neumann PJ, Chiou CF, Henning JM, Wade SW, et al. Examining the value and quality of health economic analyses: implications of utilizing the QHES. J Manag Care Pharm. 2003;9(1):53–61.Google Scholar
- 45.D’Amico Ricci G, Bouzios D, Boscia F, Lupino M, Pinna A. Cost-effectiveness of intravitreal therapy with both anti-VEGF and dexamethasone implant in patients with diabetic macular edema. In: Acta Ophthalmologica conference: 22nd European Association for Vision and Eye Research conference, EVER. Acta Ophthalmologica 2017;95 (suppl 259).Google Scholar
- 46.Cutino A, Green K, Kendall R, Moore PT, Zachary C. Economic evaluation of a fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant for patients with DME based on the FAME study. Am J Manag Care. 2015;21(4 Suppl):S63–72.Google Scholar
- 50.Ross EL, Hutton DW, Stein JD, Bressler NM, Jampol LM, Glassman AR. Cost-effectiveness of aflibercept, bevacizumab, and ranibizumab for diabetic macular edema treatment: analysis from the diabetic retinopathy clinical research network comparative effectiveness trial. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2016;134(8):888–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 51.Hutton DW, Stein JD, Bressler NM, Jampol LM, Browning D, Glassman AR. Cost-effectiveness of intravitreous ranibizumab compared with panretinal photocoagulation for proliferative diabetic retinopathy: secondary analysis from a diabetic retinopathy clinical research network randomized clinical trial. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2017;135(6):576–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 52.Kourlaba G, Relakis J, Mahon R, Kalogeropoulou M, Pantelopoulou G, Kousidou O, et al. Cost-utility of ranibizumab versus aflibercept for treating visual impairment due to diabetic macular edema in Greece. Value Health. 2015;18(7):A423.Google Scholar
- 54.Kavanos P, van der Aardweg S, Schurer W. Diabetes expenditure, burden of disease and management in 5 EU countries. London : LSE Health, London School of Economics; 2012.Google Scholar