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.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The standard definition of normal visual acuity (20/20 or 6/6 vision) is the ability to resolve a spatial pattern separated by a visual angle of 1 minute of arc. A person with a visual acuity of 6/12 (20/40) can resolve the same pattern at a distance of 6 metres (20 feet) as a person with ‘normal’ visual acuity can at 12 metres (40 feet).
References
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: 367–74
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–201
Pizzarello LD. The dimensions of the problem of eye disease among the elderly. Ophthalmology 1987; 94: 1191–5
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: 158–64
Taylor HR, Pezzullo ML, Keeffe JE. The economic impact and cost of visual impairment in Australia. Br J Ophthalmol 2006; 90: 272–5
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): 193–205
Gragoudas ES, Adamis AP, Cunningham Jr ET, et al. Pegaptanib for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. N Engl J Med 2004; 351: 2805–16
Brown DM, Kaiser PK, Michels M, et al. Ranibizumab versus verteporfin for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. N Engl J Med 2006; 355: 1432–44
Rosenfeld PJ, Brown DM, Heier JS, et al. Ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. N Engl J Med 2006; 355: 1419–31
Brown GC, Brown MM, Sharma S, et al. Incremental cost effectiveness of laser photocoagulation for subfoveal choroidal neovascularization. Ophthalmology 2000; 107: 1374–80
Brown GC, Brown MM, Brown HC, et al. A value-based medicine comparison of interventions for subfoveal neovascular macular degeneration. Ophthalmology 2007; 114: 1170–8
Busbee BG, Brown MM, Brown GC, et al. CME review: a cost-utility analysis of laser photocoagulation for extrafoveal choroidal neovascularization. Retina 2003; 23: 279–87
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]
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: 1455–63
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: 679–87
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: 837–41
Hopley C, Salkeld G, Mitchell P. Cost utility of photodynamic therapy for predominantly classic neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Br J Ophthalmol 2004; 88: 982–7
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, 1–98
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: 2051–9
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: 1107–12
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: 2096–106
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: 563–74
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): 863–79
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: 1039–45
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]
Hurley SF, Matthews JP, Guymer RH. Cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Cost Eff Resour Alloc 2008 Jun 24; 6: 12
Neubauer AS, Holz FG, Schrader W, et al. Cost-utility analysis of ranibizumab (Lucentis) in neovascular macular degeneration. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd 2007; 224: 727–32
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, 2008
Fletcher EC, Lade RJ, Adewoyin T, et al. Computerized model of cost-utility analysis for treatment of age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology 2008; 115: 2192–8
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: 2436–51
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: 467–76
Smiddy WE. Relative cost of a line of vision in age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology 2007; 114: 847–54
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): 1329–45
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: 218–22
Australian Government, Department of Health and Ageing. Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC). Photodynamic therapy with verteporfin for macular degeneration. Canberra (ACT): MSAC, 2001
Muslera E, Natal C. Cost-effectiveness of photodynamic therapy in age-related macular degeneration. Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol 2006; 81: 199–204
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: 1527–34
Smiddy WE. Economic implications of current age-related macular degeneration treatments. Ophthalmology 2009; 116: 481–7
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, 2007
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]
Scottish Medicines Consortium. Ranibizumab 10 mg/ml solution for intravitreal injection (Lucentis®). Glasgow: Scottish Medicines Consortium, 2007
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: 239–48
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: 43–58
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: 566–83
Steinbrook R. The price of sight: ranibizumab, bevacizumab, and the treatment of macular degeneration. N Engl J Med 2006; 355: 1409–12
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]
Raftery J, Clegg A, Jones J, et al. Ranibizumab (Lucentis) versus bevacizumab (Avastin): modelling cost effectiveness. Br J Ophthalmol 2007; 91: 1244–6
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: c2459
Andriolo RB, Puga ME, Belfort Jr R, et al. Bevacizumab for ocular neovascular diseases: a systematic review. Sao Paulo Med J 2009; 127: 84–91
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]
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]
Kahook MY, Liu L, Ruzycki P, et al. High-molecularweight aggregates in repackaged bevacizumab. Retina 2010; 30: 887–92
Olsen TW. Treatment of exudative age-related macular degeneration: many factors to consider. Am J Ophthalmol 2007; 144: 281–3
Bakri SJ, Snyder MR, Reid JM, et al. Pharmacokinetics of intravitreal ranibizumab (Lucentis). Ophthalmology 2007; 114: 2179–82
Bakri SJ, Snyder MR, Reid JM, et al. Pharmacokinetics of intravitreal bevacizumab (Avastin). Ophthalmology 2007; 114: 855–9
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: 1731–9
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]
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: 1344–9
Williams GA. What are the legal issues regarding the use of off-label drugs? Retina Today 2007 Jan/Feb: 43–7
MHRA and CHM. Hot topics: off-label use of unlicensed medicines. Prescribers’ responsibilities. Drug Safety Update 2009; 2: 6–7
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: 450–4
Rein DB, Saaddine JB, Wittenborn JS, et al. Technical appendix: cost-effectiveness of vitamin therapy for agerelated macular degeneration. Ophthalmology 2007; 114: e13–20
Rein DB, Saaddine JB, Wittenborn JS, et al. Cost-effectiveness of vitamin therapy for age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology 2007; 114: 1319–26
Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care. Photodynamic treatment for macular degeneration. Stockholm: Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care, 2001
Scottish Medicines Consortium. Pegaptanib 0.3 mg, solution for intravitreal injection (Macugen®). Glasgow: Scottish Medicines Consortium, 2006
Australian Government, Department of Health and Ageing. Public summary document: verteporfin. Canberra (ACT): Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, 2005
Oliva G. Photodynamic therapy in the treatment of age-related macular degeneration (update). Barcelona: Catalan Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Research, 2006
National Agency for Accreditation and Evaluation in Health (ANAES). Treatment of age-related macular degeneration. Paris: ANAES, 2001
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]
Attebo K, Mitchell P, Smith W. Visual acuity and the causes of visual loss in Australia: the Blue Mountains Eye Study. Ophthalmology 1996; 103: 357–64
O’Shea JG. Age-related macular degeneration: a leading cause of blindness. Med J Aust 1996; 165: 561–4
Owsley C, Sloane ME. Contrast sensitivity, acuity, and the perception of ‘real-world’ targets. Br J Ophthalmol 1987; 71: 791–6
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: 255–68
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]
Acknowledgements
All authors participated in the development and writing of the manuscript, and approved the final article for publication. The authors take full responsibility for the content of the article and would like to thank Dr Annette Keith (Oxford PharmaGenesis™ Ltd) for carrying out the initial literature searches, providing the authors with an overview of the search findings, and collating and incorporating comments from all authors. This editorial assistance was funded by Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland. This analysis was supported by Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland.
PM has received consultancy fees from Novartis Pharma AG, Pfizer, Allergan and Solvay and has also been paid lecture fees/honoraria by these companies. LA has received an unrestricted grant from Novartis. RW is an employee of Oxford PharmaGenesis™ Ltd, which has received project funding from Novartis Pharma AG. MG and ST are employees of Novartis Pharma AG.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mitchell, P., Annemans, L., White, R. et al. Cost Effectiveness of Treatments for Wet Age-Related Macular Degeneration. Pharmacoeconomics 29, 107–131 (2011). https://doi.org/10.2165/11585520-000000000-00000
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/11585520-000000000-00000