Cost effectiveness of treatments for wet age-related macular degeneration.
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 wet AMD (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 ranibizumab with 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.
Discipline of Ophthalmology, University of Sydney, Westmead Hospital, Hawkesbury Road, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia. paul.mitchell@sydney.edu.au
Paul
P
Mitchell
Lieven
L
Annemans
Richard
R
White
Meghan
M
Gallagher
Simu
S
Thomas
D002986:Clinical Trials as Topic; D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D006801:Humans; D008268:Macular Degeneration / Q000188:drug therapy* / Q000191:economics*; D057135:Wet Macular Degeneration / Q000188:drug therapy* / Q000191:economics*
Ophthalmology. 2007 Jul;114(7):e13-20
17462738
Br J Ophthalmol. 2004 Sep;88(9):1107-12
15317697
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2008 Nov;246(11):1527-34
18642019
Br J Ophthalmol. 2004 Aug;88(8):982-7
15258009
Am J Ophthalmol. 2008 Feb;145(2):239-248
18222192
Br J Ophthalmol. 2006 Nov;90(11):1344-9
16854824
N Engl J Med. 2006 Oct 5;355(14):1419-31
17021318
Ophthalmology. 2009 Sep;116(9):1731-9
19643495
Ophthalmology. 2007 May;114(5):847-54
17306878
Health Technol Assess. 2003;7(9):v-vi, 1-98
12709292
Med J Aust. 1996 Nov 18;165(10):561-4
8941243
Br J Ophthalmol. 2004 Apr;88(4):450-4
15031152
Eye (Lond). 2007 Dec;21(12):1455-63
17086167
Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol. 2006 Apr;81(4):199-204
16688643
Eur J Health Econ. 2006 Sep;7(3):158-64
16850334
Semin Ophthalmol. 2001 Dec;16(4):218-22
15513444
Ophthalmology. 2001 Nov;108(11):2051-9
11713079
Ophthalmology. 2009 Mar;116(3):481-7
19157562
Br J Ophthalmol. 1987 Oct;71(10):791-6
3676151
Ophthalmology. 2007 Jul;114(7):1319-26
17320962
Sao Paulo Med J. 2009 May;127(2):84-91
19597683
Clin Ther. 2008 Dec;30(12):2436-51
19167602
Am J Ophthalmol. 2007 Apr;143(4):566-83
17386270
Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2008 Jun 24;6:12
18573218
Ophthalmology. 2008 Dec;115(12):2192-8
18930556
Ophthalmology. 1987 Sep;94(9):1191-5
3684237
Ophthalmology. 2007 May;114(5):855-9
17467524
Am J Ophthalmol. 2009 Jul;148(1):43-58.e1
19376495
Ophthalmology. 2007 Jun;114(6):1170-8
17320964
Ophthalmology. 2008 Jun;115(6):1039-1045.e5
17976724
Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24(2):193-205
16460138
Ophthalmology. 2007 Dec;114(12):2179-82
18054637
Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 2007 Sep;224(9):727-32
17846963
N Engl J Med. 2006 Oct 5;355(14):1432-44
17021319
Br J Ophthalmol. 2006 Mar;90(3):272-5
16488942
Value Health. 2008 Jul-Aug;11(4):563-74
18179676
Arch Ophthalmol. 1999 Oct;117(10):1329-45
10532441
Health Technol Assess. 2008 May;12(16):iii-iv, ix-201
18462575
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2010 Apr;248(4):467-76
19669678
BMJ. 2010 Jun 09;340:c2459
20538634
Ophthalmology. 1996 Mar;103(3):357-64
8600410
Ophthalmology. 2000 Jul;107(7):1374-80
10889115
Br J Ophthalmol. 2007 Sep;91(9):1244-6
17431015
N Engl J Med. 2006 Oct 5;355(14):1409-12
17021315
Retina. 2010 Jun;30(6):887-92
20458261
J Fr Ophtalmol. 2007 Oct;30(8):837-41
17978682
Surv Ophthalmol. 1995 Mar-Apr;39(5):367-74
7604360
N Engl J Med. 2004 Dec 30;351(27):2805-16
15625332
Clin Ther. 2007 Sep;29(9):2096-106; discussion 2094-5
18035208
Drugs Aging. 2008;25(3):255-68
18331076
Am J Ophthalmol. 2005 Oct;140(4):679-87
16226519
Retina. 2003 Jun;23(3):279-87; ; quiz 443-4
12824826
Pharmacoeconomics. 2007;25(10):863-79
17887807
Am J Ophthalmol. 2007 Aug;144(2):281-3
17659955