Cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab and ranibizumab for newly diagnosed neovascular macular degeneration (an American Ophthalmological Society thesis).

Joshua D Stein, Paula Anne Newman-Casey, Tavag Mrinalini, Paul P Lee, David W Hutton
{"title":"Cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab and ranibizumab for newly diagnosed neovascular macular degeneration (an American Ophthalmological Society thesis).","authors":"Joshua D Stein,&nbsp;Paula Anne Newman-Casey,&nbsp;Tavag Mrinalini,&nbsp;Paul P Lee,&nbsp;David W Hutton","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To determine the most cost-effective treatment for patients with newly diagnosed neovascular macular degeneration: monthly or as-needed bevacizumab injections, or monthly or as-needed ranibizumab injections.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using a Markov model with a 20-year time horizon, we compared the incremental cost-effectiveness of treating a hypothetical cohort of 80-year-old patients with newly diagnosed neovascular macular degeneration using monthly bevacizumab, as-needed bevacizumab, monthly ranibizumab, or as-needed ranibizumab. Data came from the Comparison of Age-Related Macular Degeneration Treatment Trial (CATT), the Medicare Fee Schedules, and the medical literature.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Compared with as-needed bevacizumab, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of monthly bevacizumab is $242,357 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Monthly ranibizumab gains an additional 0.02 QALYs vs monthly bevacizumab at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of more than $10 million per QALY. As-needed ranibizumab was dominated by monthly bevacizumab. In sensitivity analyses assuming a willingness to pay of $100,000 per QALY, the annual risk of serious vascular events would have to be at least 2.5 times higher with bevacizumab than that observed in the CATT trial for as-needed ranibizumab to have an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of <$100,000 per QALY. In another sensitivity analysis, even if every patient receiving bevacizumab experienced declining vision by one category (eg, from 20/25-20/40 to 20/50-20/80) after 2 years but all patients receiving ranibizumab retained their vision level, as-needed ranibizumab would have an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $97,340 per QALY.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Even after considering the potential for differences in risks of serious adverse events and therapeutic effectiveness, bevacizumab confers considerably greater value than ranibizumab for the treatment of neovascular macular degeneration.</p>","PeriodicalId":23166,"journal":{"name":"Transactions of the American Ophthalmological Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3797829/pdf/1545-6110_v111_p056.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transactions of the American Ophthalmological Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To determine the most cost-effective treatment for patients with newly diagnosed neovascular macular degeneration: monthly or as-needed bevacizumab injections, or monthly or as-needed ranibizumab injections.

Methods: Using a Markov model with a 20-year time horizon, we compared the incremental cost-effectiveness of treating a hypothetical cohort of 80-year-old patients with newly diagnosed neovascular macular degeneration using monthly bevacizumab, as-needed bevacizumab, monthly ranibizumab, or as-needed ranibizumab. Data came from the Comparison of Age-Related Macular Degeneration Treatment Trial (CATT), the Medicare Fee Schedules, and the medical literature.

Results: Compared with as-needed bevacizumab, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of monthly bevacizumab is $242,357 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Monthly ranibizumab gains an additional 0.02 QALYs vs monthly bevacizumab at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of more than $10 million per QALY. As-needed ranibizumab was dominated by monthly bevacizumab. In sensitivity analyses assuming a willingness to pay of $100,000 per QALY, the annual risk of serious vascular events would have to be at least 2.5 times higher with bevacizumab than that observed in the CATT trial for as-needed ranibizumab to have an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of <$100,000 per QALY. In another sensitivity analysis, even if every patient receiving bevacizumab experienced declining vision by one category (eg, from 20/25-20/40 to 20/50-20/80) after 2 years but all patients receiving ranibizumab retained their vision level, as-needed ranibizumab would have an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $97,340 per QALY.

Conclusion: Even after considering the potential for differences in risks of serious adverse events and therapeutic effectiveness, bevacizumab confers considerably greater value than ranibizumab for the treatment of neovascular macular degeneration.

贝伐单抗和雷尼单抗治疗新诊断的血管性黄斑变性的成本效益(美国眼科学会论文)。
目的:确定新诊断的新生血管性黄斑变性患者最具成本效益的治疗方法:每月或按需注射贝伐单抗,或每月或按需注射雷尼单抗。方法:使用20年时间跨度的马尔可夫模型,我们比较了每月使用贝伐单抗、按需使用贝伐单抗、每月使用雷尼单抗或按需使用雷尼单抗治疗新诊断的80岁新血管性黄斑变性患者的增量成本效益。数据来自年龄相关性黄斑变性治疗试验(CATT)、医疗保险费用表和医学文献的比较。结果:与按需贝伐珠单抗相比,每月贝伐珠单抗的增量成本-效果比为242,357美元/质量调整生命年(QALY)。与贝伐单抗相比,每月雷尼单抗可额外获得0.02个QALY,每个QALY的增量成本-效果比超过1000万美元。按需雷尼单抗以每月一次的贝伐单抗为主。在敏感性分析中,假设每个QALY愿意支付10万美元,使用贝伐单抗的严重血管事件的年风险必须至少比在CATT试验中观察到的按需使用雷尼单抗的风险高2.5倍,才能具有增量成本-效果比。即使考虑到严重不良事件风险和治疗效果的潜在差异,贝伐单抗在治疗新生血管性黄斑变性方面的价值也比雷尼单抗大得多。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信