法利西单抗治疗糖尿病黄斑水肿 (DMO) 的成本效益:英国分析。

IF 2 Q2 ECONOMICS
PharmacoEconomics Open Pub Date : 2024-05-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-04 DOI:10.1007/s41669-023-00465-4
Christian Bührer, Thomas Paling, Richard Gale, Tatiana Paulo, Marloes Bagijn
{"title":"法利西单抗治疗糖尿病黄斑水肿 (DMO) 的成本效益:英国分析。","authors":"Christian Bührer, Thomas Paling, Richard Gale, Tatiana Paulo, Marloes Bagijn","doi":"10.1007/s41669-023-00465-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>The aim of this work was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of faricimab against relevant therapeutic alternatives used in clinical practice for the treatment of diabetic macular oedema (DMO) in the UK.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A state-transition (Markov) model, with health states based on visual acuity scores and treatment pathways, was developed to conduct cost-utility analysis of faricimab treat and extend (T&E) regimen versus ranibizumab pro re nata (PRN) and aflibercept PRN over a time horizon of 25 years. Comparison against bevacizumab PRN was considered in scenario analysis. Effectiveness data for faricimab was sourced from the pivotal YOSEMITE and RHINE double-blind randomised controlled trials, and from a network meta-analysis for comparators. Costs and (dis)utilities were taken from nationally published sources or literature. The base case included indirect costs (productivity gains, informal care) given the wider impacts of DMO on society. Sensitivity analyses were conducted.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the base case, faricimab T&E dominated ranibizumab PRN and aflibercept PRN, being more effective and resulting in cost savings (between 0.16 and 0.36 mean QALYs gained, and £5483-9655 mean cost savings). In scenario analysis, faricimab was more effective but costlier compared with bevacizumab, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £8898 per QALY gained. Considering only healthcare payer costs, the ICER of faricimab compared with ranibizumab PRN was £7991 per QALY gained and faricimab dominated aflibercept PRN.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Faricimab T&E has the potential to reduce the burden of vision loss on society, giving people living with DMO greater independence and contributing to increased healthcare system capacity. At a threshold of £20,000, faricimab T&E is cost-effective compared with relevant comparators, and potentially cost saving.</p>","PeriodicalId":19770,"journal":{"name":"PharmacoEconomics Open","volume":" ","pages":"445-457"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11058163/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cost-Effectiveness of Faricimab in the Treatment of Diabetic Macular Oedema (DMO): A UK Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Christian Bührer, Thomas Paling, Richard Gale, Tatiana Paulo, Marloes Bagijn\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s41669-023-00465-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>The aim of this work was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of faricimab against relevant therapeutic alternatives used in clinical practice for the treatment of diabetic macular oedema (DMO) in the UK.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A state-transition (Markov) model, with health states based on visual acuity scores and treatment pathways, was developed to conduct cost-utility analysis of faricimab treat and extend (T&E) regimen versus ranibizumab pro re nata (PRN) and aflibercept PRN over a time horizon of 25 years. Comparison against bevacizumab PRN was considered in scenario analysis. Effectiveness data for faricimab was sourced from the pivotal YOSEMITE and RHINE double-blind randomised controlled trials, and from a network meta-analysis for comparators. Costs and (dis)utilities were taken from nationally published sources or literature. The base case included indirect costs (productivity gains, informal care) given the wider impacts of DMO on society. Sensitivity analyses were conducted.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the base case, faricimab T&E dominated ranibizumab PRN and aflibercept PRN, being more effective and resulting in cost savings (between 0.16 and 0.36 mean QALYs gained, and £5483-9655 mean cost savings). In scenario analysis, faricimab was more effective but costlier compared with bevacizumab, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £8898 per QALY gained. Considering only healthcare payer costs, the ICER of faricimab compared with ranibizumab PRN was £7991 per QALY gained and faricimab dominated aflibercept PRN.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Faricimab T&E has the potential to reduce the burden of vision loss on society, giving people living with DMO greater independence and contributing to increased healthcare system capacity. At a threshold of £20,000, faricimab T&E is cost-effective compared with relevant comparators, and potentially cost saving.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19770,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PharmacoEconomics Open\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"445-457\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11058163/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PharmacoEconomics Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s41669-023-00465-4\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/3/4 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PharmacoEconomics Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s41669-023-00465-4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:这项研究旨在评估法尼单抗与英国临床实践中用于治疗糖尿病黄斑水肿(DMO)的相关替代疗法的成本效益:方法:建立了一个状态转换(马尔可夫)模型,该模型的健康状态基于视力评分和治疗路径,在25年的时间跨度内,对法尼单抗治疗和延长(T&E)方案与雷尼珠单抗PRN(PRN)和阿弗利百普PRN进行成本效用分析。在方案分析中考虑了与贝伐珠单抗 PRN 的比较。法尼单抗的疗效数据来源于关键的 YOSEMITE 和 RHINE 双盲随机对照试验,以及一项网络荟萃分析。成本和(不)效用来自国内公布的资料来源或文献。考虑到 DMO 对社会的广泛影响,基础案例包括间接成本(生产率提高、非正式护理)。进行了敏感性分析:在基础病例中,法尼单抗 T&E 优于雷尼珠单抗 PRN 和阿夫利百普 PRN,因为它们更有效并能节省成本(平均 QALYs 增益在 0.16 到 0.36 之间,平均成本节省 5483-9655 英镑)。在情景分析中,与贝伐珠单抗相比,法尼单抗更有效,但成本更高,每QALY获得的增量成本效益比(ICER)为8898英镑。仅考虑医疗支付方成本,法利单抗与雷尼珠单抗PRN相比,每QALY收益的ICER为7991英镑,法利单抗在阿弗利百普PRN中占优势:结论: Faricimab T&E 有可能减轻视力丧失对社会造成的负担,使 DMO 患者更加独立,并有助于提高医疗系统的能力。在 20,000 英镑的临界值下,法利珠单抗 T&E 与相关比较者相比具有成本效益,并有可能节约成本。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Cost-Effectiveness of Faricimab in the Treatment of Diabetic Macular Oedema (DMO): A UK Analysis.

Aim: The aim of this work was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of faricimab against relevant therapeutic alternatives used in clinical practice for the treatment of diabetic macular oedema (DMO) in the UK.

Methods: A state-transition (Markov) model, with health states based on visual acuity scores and treatment pathways, was developed to conduct cost-utility analysis of faricimab treat and extend (T&E) regimen versus ranibizumab pro re nata (PRN) and aflibercept PRN over a time horizon of 25 years. Comparison against bevacizumab PRN was considered in scenario analysis. Effectiveness data for faricimab was sourced from the pivotal YOSEMITE and RHINE double-blind randomised controlled trials, and from a network meta-analysis for comparators. Costs and (dis)utilities were taken from nationally published sources or literature. The base case included indirect costs (productivity gains, informal care) given the wider impacts of DMO on society. Sensitivity analyses were conducted.

Results: In the base case, faricimab T&E dominated ranibizumab PRN and aflibercept PRN, being more effective and resulting in cost savings (between 0.16 and 0.36 mean QALYs gained, and £5483-9655 mean cost savings). In scenario analysis, faricimab was more effective but costlier compared with bevacizumab, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £8898 per QALY gained. Considering only healthcare payer costs, the ICER of faricimab compared with ranibizumab PRN was £7991 per QALY gained and faricimab dominated aflibercept PRN.

Conclusions: Faricimab T&E has the potential to reduce the burden of vision loss on society, giving people living with DMO greater independence and contributing to increased healthcare system capacity. At a threshold of £20,000, faricimab T&E is cost-effective compared with relevant comparators, and potentially cost saving.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
64
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: PharmacoEconomics - Open focuses on applied research on the economic implications and health outcomes associated with drugs, devices and other healthcare interventions. The journal includes, but is not limited to, the following research areas:Economic analysis of healthcare interventionsHealth outcomes researchCost-of-illness studiesQuality-of-life studiesAdditional digital features (including animated abstracts, video abstracts, slide decks, audio slides, instructional videos, infographics, podcasts and animations) can be published with articles; these are designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. In addition, articles published in PharmacoEconomics -Open may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist readers who have some knowledge of, but not in-depth expertise in, the area to understand important medical advances.All manuscripts are subject to peer review by international experts. Letters to the Editor are welcomed and will be considered for publication.
×
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