A Cost Effectiveness Analysis of Avacincaptad Pegol for the Treatment of Geographic Atrophy with Comparison to Pegcetacoplan

IF 4.4 Q1 OPHTHALMOLOGY

Ophthalmology. Retina Pub Date : 2024-11-01 DOI:10.1016/j.oret.2024.05.011

{"title":"A Cost Effectiveness Analysis of Avacincaptad Pegol for the Treatment of Geographic Atrophy with Comparison to Pegcetacoplan","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.oret.2024.05.011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div><span><span>The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of the treatment of </span>geographic atrophy (GA) with intravitreal </span>avacincaptad pegol<span> (ACP) and to compare it with pegcetacoplan (PEG).</span></div></div><div><h3>Design</h3><div>Cost analysis based on data from published studies.</div></div><div><h3>Subjects</h3><div>None; based on data from published sham control compared with 2 treatment groups in each of the index studies.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Costs were based on 2022 Medicare reimbursement data for both facility (hospital-based) and nonfacility settings in Miami. Specific usage and outcomes were derived from the GATHER2 study as well as DERBY and OAKS trials. For ACP, all patients were treated every month (EM) in year 1 then randomized to every other month (EOM) or EM in year 2. Two-year models were created for patients in the facility setting for extrafoveal (ACP and PEG) and all patients (PEG).</div></div><div><h3>Main Outcome Measures</h3><div>Cost, cost utility, and cost per area of GA (in United States dollars).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div><span>The cost to treat GA with ACP in EM and EOM treatment groups over the 2 years as reported was $67 400 and $40 600, respectively. With ACP treatment over 2 years, the daily cost of delaying GA 3.4 months (EM) and 4.5 months (EOM) was $649 (EM) and $356 (EOM). The (facility-based) costs per unit area of retinal pigment epithelium saved for patients with extrafoveal GA over the 2-year period were $119 000/mm</span><sup>2</sup> (EM ACP) versus $54 000/mm<sup>2</sup> (EM PEG) (<em>P</em> < 0.001), $57 100/mm<sup>2</sup> (EOM ACP) versus $31 400/mm<sup>2</sup> (EOM PEG) (<em>P</em> < 0.001), and $45 300/mm<sup>2</sup> (hypothetical EOM from outset ACP).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Treatment of GA with intravitreal ACP EOM was more cost effective than EM. When assessing extrafoveal lesions, ACP was less cost effective than PEG for both EM and EOM treatment.</div></div><div><h3>Financial Disclosure(s)</h3><div>Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":19501,"journal":{"name":"Ophthalmology. Retina","volume":"8 11","pages":"Pages 1061-1065"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ophthalmology. Retina","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468653024002380","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of the treatment of geographic atrophy (GA) with intravitreal avacincaptad pegol (ACP) and to compare it with pegcetacoplan (PEG).

Design

Cost analysis based on data from published studies.

Subjects

None; based on data from published sham control compared with 2 treatment groups in each of the index studies.

Methods

Costs were based on 2022 Medicare reimbursement data for both facility (hospital-based) and nonfacility settings in Miami. Specific usage and outcomes were derived from the GATHER2 study as well as DERBY and OAKS trials. For ACP, all patients were treated every month (EM) in year 1 then randomized to every other month (EOM) or EM in year 2. Two-year models were created for patients in the facility setting for extrafoveal (ACP and PEG) and all patients (PEG).

Main Outcome Measures

Cost, cost utility, and cost per area of GA (in United States dollars).

Results

The cost to treat GA with ACP in EM and EOM treatment groups over the 2 years as reported was $67 400 and $40 600, respectively. With ACP treatment over 2 years, the daily cost of delaying GA 3.4 months (EM) and 4.5 months (EOM) was $649 (EM) and $356 (EOM). The (facility-based) costs per unit area of retinal pigment epithelium saved for patients with extrafoveal GA over the 2-year period were $119 000/mm² (EM ACP) versus $54 000/mm² (EM PEG) (P < 0.001), $57 100/mm² (EOM ACP) versus $31 400/mm² (EOM PEG) (P < 0.001), and $45 300/mm² (hypothetical EOM from outset ACP).

Conclusion

Treatment of GA with intravitreal ACP EOM was more cost effective than EM. When assessing extrafoveal lesions, ACP was less cost effective than PEG for both EM and EOM treatment.

Financial Disclosure(s)

Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

查看原文本刊更多论文

阿伐伐他汀 Pegol 治疗地理萎缩的成本效益分析与 Pegcetacoplan 的比较。

目的：评估玻璃体内阿伐伐他汀栓剂（ACP）治疗地理萎缩（GA）的成本效益，并将其与培酮康普兰（PEG）进行比较：设计：根据已发表的研究数据进行成本分析：受试者：无；基于已发表的假对照组与各索引研究中的 2 个治疗组的比较数据：成本基于 2022 年迈阿密医疗保险设施（医院）和非设施环境的报销数据。具体用量和结果来自 GATHER2 研究以及 DERBY 和 OAKS 试验。对于ACP，所有患者在第1年接受EM治疗，然后在第2年随机接受EOM或EM治疗。为眼底外（ACP 和 PEG）和所有患者（PEG）的设施环境中的患者创建了两年模型：结果测量：成本、成本效用和每个 GA 面积的成本（美元）：报告显示，每月（EM）和每隔一个月（EOM）用 ACP 治疗组在 2 年内治疗 GA 的成本分别为 67,400 美元和 40,600 美元。使用 ACP 治疗 2 年，将 GA 推迟 3.4 个月（EM）和 4.5 个月（EOM）的每日成本分别为 649 美元（EM）和 356 美元（EOM）。在这两年期间，眼底外GA患者节省的RPE单位面积成本（基于设施）为119,000美元/平方毫米（EM ACP）对54,000美元/平方毫米（EM PEG）（P2（EOM ACP）对31,400美元/平方毫米（EOM PEG））（P2（假设EOM从一开始就是ACP）：结论：用玻璃体内ACP EOM治疗GA比EM更具成本效益。在评估眼底病变时，ACP 治疗 EM 和 EOM 的成本效益均低于 PEG。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊