PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 29, Issue 2, pp 107–131

Cost Effectiveness of Treatments for Wet Age-Related Macular Degeneration

  • Paul Mitchell
  • Lieven Annemans
  • Richard White
  • Meghan Gallagher
  • Simu Thomas
Review Article Cost Effectiveness of Treatments for Wet AMD

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.

Supplementary material

40273_2012_29020107_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (167 kb)
Supplementary material, approximately 171 KB.

References

  1. 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: 367–74Google Scholar
  2. 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–201PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pizzarello LD. The dimensions of the problem of eye disease among the elderly. Ophthalmology 1987; 94: 1191–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 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: 158–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Taylor HR, Pezzullo ML, Keeffe JE. The economic impact and cost of visual impairment in Australia. Br J Ophthalmol 2006; 90: 272–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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): 193–205PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gragoudas ES, Adamis AP, Cunningham Jr ET, et al. Pegaptanib for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. N Engl J Med 2004; 351: 2805–16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brown DM, Kaiser PK, Michels M, et al. Ranibizumab versus verteporfin for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. N Engl J Med 2006; 355: 1432–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rosenfeld PJ, Brown DM, Heier JS, et al. Ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. N Engl J Med 2006; 355: 1419–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brown GC, Brown MM, Sharma S, et al. Incremental cost effectiveness of laser photocoagulation for subfoveal choroidal neovascularization. Ophthalmology 2000; 107: 1374–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brown GC, Brown MM, Brown HC, et al. A value-based medicine comparison of interventions for subfoveal neovascular macular degeneration. Ophthalmology 2007; 114: 1170–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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: 279–87PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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. 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: 1455–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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: 679–87PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 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: 837–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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: 982–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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, 1–98Google Scholar
  19. 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: 2051–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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: 1107–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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: 2096–106PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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: 563–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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): 863–79PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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: 1039–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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. 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: 12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Neubauer AS, Holz FG, Schrader W, et al. Cost-utility analysis of ranibizumab (Lucentis) in neovascular macular degeneration. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd 2007; 224: 727–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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, 2008Google Scholar
  29. 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: 2192–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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: 2436–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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: 467–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Smiddy WE. Relative cost of a line of vision in age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology 2007; 114: 847–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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): 1329–45Google Scholar
  34. 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: 218–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Australian Government, Department of Health and Ageing. Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC). Photodynamic therapy with verteporfin for macular degeneration. Canberra (ACT): MSAC, 2001Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Muslera E, Natal C. Cost-effectiveness of photodynamic therapy in age-related macular degeneration. Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol 2006; 81: 199–204PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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: 1527–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Smiddy WE. Economic implications of current age-related macular degeneration treatments. Ophthalmology 2009; 116: 481–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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, 2007Google Scholar
  40. 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. 41.
    Scottish Medicines Consortium. Ranibizumab 10 mg/ml solution for intravitreal injection (Lucentis®). Glasgow: Scottish Medicines Consortium, 2007Google Scholar
  42. 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: 239–48PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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: 43–58PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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: 566–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Steinbrook R. The price of sight: ranibizumab, bevacizumab, and the treatment of macular degeneration. N Engl J Med 2006; 355: 1409–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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. 47.
    Raftery J, Clegg A, Jones J, et al. Ranibizumab (Lucentis) versus bevacizumab (Avastin): modelling cost effectiveness. Br J Ophthalmol 2007; 91: 1244–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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: c2459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Andriolo RB, Puga ME, Belfort Jr R, et al. Bevacizumab for ocular neovascular diseases: a systematic review. Sao Paulo Med J 2009; 127: 84–91PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 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. 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. 52.
    Kahook MY, Liu L, Ruzycki P, et al. High-molecularweight aggregates in repackaged bevacizumab. Retina 2010; 30: 887–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Olsen TW. Treatment of exudative age-related macular degeneration: many factors to consider. Am J Ophthalmol 2007; 144: 281–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Bakri SJ, Snyder MR, Reid JM, et al. Pharmacokinetics of intravitreal ranibizumab (Lucentis). Ophthalmology 2007; 114: 2179–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Bakri SJ, Snyder MR, Reid JM, et al. Pharmacokinetics of intravitreal bevacizumab (Avastin). Ophthalmology 2007; 114: 855–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 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: 1731–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 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. 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: 1344–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Williams GA. What are the legal issues regarding the use of off-label drugs? Retina Today 2007 Jan/Feb: 43–7Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    MHRA and CHM. Hot topics: off-label use of unlicensed medicines. Prescribers’ responsibilities. Drug Safety Update 2009; 2: 6–7Google Scholar
  61. 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: 450–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Rein DB, Saaddine JB, Wittenborn JS, et al. Technical appendix: cost-effectiveness of vitamin therapy for agerelated macular degeneration. Ophthalmology 2007; 114: e13–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Rein DB, Saaddine JB, Wittenborn JS, et al. Cost-effectiveness of vitamin therapy for age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology 2007; 114: 1319–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care. Photodynamic treatment for macular degeneration. Stockholm: Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care, 2001Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Scottish Medicines Consortium. Pegaptanib 0.3 mg, solution for intravitreal injection (Macugen®). Glasgow: Scottish Medicines Consortium, 2006Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Australian Government, Department of Health and Ageing. Public summary document: verteporfin. Canberra (ACT): Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, 2005Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Oliva G. Photodynamic therapy in the treatment of age-related macular degeneration (update). Barcelona: Catalan Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Research, 2006Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    National Agency for Accreditation and Evaluation in Health (ANAES). Treatment of age-related macular degeneration. Paris: ANAES, 2001Google Scholar
  69. 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. 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: 357–64PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    O’Shea JG. Age-related macular degeneration: a leading cause of blindness. Med J Aust 1996; 165: 561–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Owsley C, Sloane ME. Contrast sensitivity, acuity, and the perception of ‘real-world’ targets. Br J Ophthalmol 1987; 71: 791–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 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: 255–68PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 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

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul Mitchell
    • 1
  • Lieven Annemans
    • 2
  • Richard White
    • 3
  • Meghan Gallagher
    • 4
  • Simu Thomas
    • 5
  1. 1.Discipline of Ophthalmology, University of Sydney, Westmead HospitalWestmeadAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Public HealthFaculty of Medicine, Ghent UniversityGhentBelgium
  3. 3.Research Evaluation Unit, Oxford PharmaGenesis LtdOxfordUK
  4. 4.Novartis Pharma AGBaselSwitzerland
  5. 5.Novartis Pharmaceuticals CorporationEast HanoverUSA
  6. 6.Eye Clinic (B4A)Westmead HospitalWestmeadAustralia

Personalised recommendations