PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 25, Issue 10, pp 863–879

Cost Effectiveness of Pegaptanib for the Treatment of Age-Related Macular Degeneration in the UK

  • Sorrel E. Wolowacz
  • Neil Roskell
  • Steven Kelly
  • Fiona M. Maciver
  • Chris S. Brand
Original Research Article

Abstract

Background: Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is the primary cause of vision loss in the elderly and results in significant economic and humanistic burden. The selective vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor, pegaptanib (Macugen®) is indicated for patients with neovascular AMD. Guidance is needed regarding the cost effectiveness of treatment, any variation between sub-populations of differing clinical characteristics and the optimum duration of treatment. Objective: To estimate the cost effectiveness of pegaptanib versus best supportive care (BSC) for AMD from the perspective of the UK government, and to evaluate the impact of patient characteristics and differing treatment discontinuation scenarios.

Methods: A cohort of 1000 patients aged >45 years with a best-corrected visual acuity (VA) in their better-seeing eye of ≤6/12 was modelled. Patients were either treated with pegaptanib (0.3mg every 6 weeks for a maximum of 2 years in their better-seeing eye only) or received BSC (no active treatment). Supportive services were provided for patients with a VA ≤6/60.

A 10-year Markov model composed of 12 VA states (defined by individual Snellen lines) and a dead state was constructed.1 Time-dependent transition probabilities for the loss and gain of Snellen lines were derived from parametric survival curves fitted to patient-level data from the VISION trials. Survival curves were fitted with treatment and baseline Snellen scores as covariates; additional curves were fitted with the addition of age, gender, lesion type or lesion size as covariates. Mortality rates were adjusted for the age, gender and VA of the population. Cost effectiveness was expressed as the incremental cost (IC) per vision-year saved and IC/QALY. Uncertainty was explored by probabilistic and univariate sensitivity analysis. Costs (year 2005 values) and outcomes were discounted at 3.5% per anum.

Results: In the base-case analysis, treatment was targeted to patients with a VA of 6/12 to 6/95 and discontinued after 2 years, or earlier if VA fell below 6/95 or by ≥6 lines. The IC/QALY was estimated as £8023 (upper 95% CI £20 641). Cost effectiveness varied by age (age <75 years = £2033/QALY; age >75 years = £11 657/QALY) and by pre-treatment VA (6/12–6/95 = £8023/QALY; 6/12–6/60 = £6664/QALY; 6/12s-6/24 = £1920/QALY). Gender and lesion type or size had little effect. Cost effectiveness was not sensitive to precise rules for treatment discontinuation, but was maximised if treatment was discontinued in patients no longer likely to benefit.

Conclusions: The results suggest that pegaptanib treatment is likely to be cost effective across all groups studied, and marginally more cost effective in younger patients and those with better pre-treatment VA. Cost effectiveness appears to be optimised if treatment is discontinued after 1 year if individual patients’ VA has dropped by ≥6 lines from pre-treatment levels, or at any time if it drops below 6/95. However, strict application of discontinuation rules does not appear to be necessary for pegaptanib to be cost effective. Clinical judgement and patient preference should be an important determinant in decisions about stopping treatment.

Supplementary material

40273_2012_25100863_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (166 kb)
Supplementary material, approximately 170 KB.

References

  1. 1.
    Vingerling JR, Klaver CC, Hofman A, et al. Epidemiology of age-related maculopathy. Epidemiol Rev 1995; 17 (2): 347–359PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bressler SB, Bressler NM, Fine SL, et al. Natural course of choroidal neovascular membranes within the foveal avascular zone in senile macular degeneration. Am J Ophthalmol 1982 Feb; 93 (2): 157–163PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brown GC, Sharma S, Brown MM, et al. Utility values and age related macular degeneration. AMA Arch Ophthalmol 2000; 118: 47–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    O’Neill C, Jamison J, McCulloch D, et al. Age related macular degeneration, cost-of illness issues. Drug Aging 2001; 18 (4): 233–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fitzgerald RG. Reactions to blindness: an exploratory study of adults with recent loss of sight. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1970; 22: 370–379PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Evans RL. Loneliness, depression and social activity after determination of legal blindness. Psychol Rep 1983; 52: 603–608PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Galaria II, Casten RJ, Rovner BW. Development of a shorter version of the Geriatric Depression Scale for visually impaired older patients. Int Psychogeriatr 2000; 12 (4): 435–443PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Scott IU, Schein OD, Feuer WJ, et al. Emotional distress in patients with retinal disease. Am J Ophthalmol 2001; 131 (5): 584–589PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dutton GN. Age related macular degeneration: could we improve the services we offer? Br J Ophthalmol 2000; 84: 945–946PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Berman K, Brodaty H. Psychosocial effects of age-related macular degeneration. Int Psychogeriatr 2006 Sep; 18 (3): 415–428PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Javitt JC, Zhou Z, Willke RJ. Association between vision loss and higher medical care costs in Medicare beneficiaries: costs are greater for those with progressive vision loss. Ophthalmology 2007; 11 (2): 238–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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 Tech Assess 2003; 7 (9): v–vi, 1-98Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guidance on the use of photodynamic therapy for age-related macular degeneration [technology appraisal 68, 2003 Sep] (online). Available from URL: http://www.nice,org.uk/page.aspx?.o=TA068guidance [Accessed 2006 Dec 1]Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pegaptanib summary of product characteristics. Sandwich, Kent: Pfizer Ltd, 2006Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gragoudas ES, Adamis AP, Cunningham ET, et al. Pegaptanib for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. N Engl J Med 2004; 351: 2805–2816PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chakravarthy U, Adamis AP, Cunningham ET, et al. for the VEGF Inhibition Study in Ocular Neovascularization (V.I.S.I.O.N.) clinical trial group. Year 2 efficacy results of 2 randomized controlled clinical trials of pegaptanib for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology 2006 Sep; 113 (9): 1508–1525PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    D’Amico DJ, Patel M, Adamis AP, et al. for the VEGF Inhibition Study in Ocular Neovascularization (V.I.S.I.O.N.) clinical trial group. Pegaptanib sodium for neovascular age-related macular degeneration: two-year safety results of the two prospective, multicenter, controlled clinical trials. Ophthalmology 2006 Jun; 113 (6): 992–1001PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Government Actuary’s Department. Population projections 2003 based [online]. Available from URL: http://www.gad.gov.uk/population [Accessed 2006 Dec 1]Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Klein R, Klein BEK, Tomany SC, et al. Ten-year incidence and progression of age-related maculopathy: the Beaver Dam Eye Study. Ophthalmology 2002; 109 (10): 1767–1779PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    VISION trials patient-level data. Surrey: Pfizer Ltd, 2006 (Data on file)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    NHS reference costs. London: Department of Health, 2004Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    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 Sep; 88 (9): 1107–1112PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mills E, Heels-Ansdell D, Kelly S, et al. Randomised trial of pegaptanib sodium for age-related macular degeneration used an innovative design to explore disease modifying effects. J Clin Epidemiol 2007; 60 (5): 456–460PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal, 2004 Apr [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/page.aspx?.o=201974 [Accessed 2006 Dec 1]Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Office for National Statistics. Mortality statistics, general. Mortality rates, 2001. Deaths, 2001: rates per 1000 population by age-group and sex in the UK [from table 6] (series DH1, no. 34) 2001 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase [Accessed 2006 Dec 1]Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Office for National Statistics. Key health statistics from general practice, 1998. Table 5A7: prevalence of treated depression per 1000 patients, by age, sex and calendar year. 1994–98 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/xsdataset.asp?.More=Y&vlnk=2341&AH=Y&B2.x=37&B2.y=12 [Accessed 2006 Dec 1]Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Brennan J, Johamsen A, Butler J, et al. Place of residence and risk of fracture in older people: a population-based study of over 65-year-olds in Cardiff. Osteoporosis Int 2003; 14 (5): 515–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Curtis L, Netten A. Unit costs of health and social care. Kent: University of Kent Personal Social Services Research Unit, 2005Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    British Medical Association and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. British National Formulary. No. 50. London: BMA, RPS, 2005 SepGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Scottish Executive Health Department. NHS circular: PCS (DD) 2005/5. 14 April 2005 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.sehd.scot.nhs.uk/pcs/PCS200(DD)05.pdf [Accessed 2007 Aug 17]Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    The Royal Commission on Long-Term Care. With respect to age: long-term care. Rights and responsibilities. London: The Stationery Office, 1999Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Department of Work and Pensions, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit. Annual summary statistics May 2003 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.dwp.gov.uk/asdl/hb_ctb/ht_ctb_annual_may03.asp [Accessed 2007 Aug 17]Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Directgov. Central Office of Information [online]. Available from URL: http://www.direct.gov.uk [Accessed 2007 Aug 17]Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Thomas CM, Morris S. Cost of depression among adults in England in 2000. Br J Psychiatry 2003; 183: 514–519PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kaiser PK, and the Treatment of A-related macular degeneration with Photodynamic therapy (TAP) study group. Verteporfin therapy of subfoveal choroidal neovascularization in age-related macular degeneration: 5-year results of two randomized clinical trials with an open-label extension. TAP report no. 8. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2006 Sep; 244 (9): 1132–1142PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Scottish Medicines Consortium. Advice on pegaptanib (Macugen®), for use within NHS Scotland: pegaptanib 0.3mg solution for intravitreal injection [Macugen®] (290/06) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.scottishmedicines.org.uk/press/detail.asp?.id=1030 [Accessed 2006 Dec 1]Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sorrel E. Wolowacz
    • 1
  • Neil Roskell
    • 1
  • Steven Kelly
    • 2
  • Fiona M. Maciver
    • 1
  • Chris S. Brand
    • 3
  1. 1.RTI-Health Solutions, Williams House, University of Manchester Science ParkManchesterUK
  2. 2.Pfizer LtdSurreyUK
  3. 3.Royal Hallamshire HospitalSheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations