Ranibizumab, verteporfin photodynamic therapy or observation for the treatment of myopic choroidal neovascularization: cost effectiveness in the UK.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of ranibizumab compared with verteporfin photodynamic therapy (vPDT) or no treatment (observation) in patients with visual impairment due to myopic choroidal neovascularization (CNV). METHODS: A Markov model with health states defined by best-corrected visual acuity and a 3-month cycle length was developed. It had a healthcare provider (UK National Health Service and personal social services) perspective, a lifetime time horizon, and was based on 2011 prices; future costs and health outcomes were discounted at 3.5 % per annum. Baseline characteristics were based on the phase III RADIANCE (Ranibizumab and vPDT Evaluation in Myopic CNV) study, and year 1 health-state transitions were based on this and the VIP (Verteporfin in Photodynamic Therapy) study. Extensive sensitivity analyses tested the robustness of the model. RESULTS: The lifetime cost of treating myopic CNV with ranibizumab was £12,866, whereas vPDT and observation were associated with total costs of £14,421 and £8,163, respectively. Ranibizumab treatment produced higher cumulative quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs; 12.99) than vPDT (12.60) or observation (12.45). Ranibizumab treatment was therefore dominant, with greater health gains and lower overall costs than vPDT. Ranibizumab was cost effective compared with observation, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £8,778/QALY. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, ranibizumab had a 100 % and 88 % probability of being cost effective compared with vPDT and observation, respectively, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000/QALY. CONCLUSION: This study indicates that ranibizumab therapy is dominant over vPDT for the treatment of visual impairment due to CNV secondary to pathologic myopia in the UK healthcare setting and cost effective compared with observation.

Cost and effectiveness of therapy for wet age-related macular degeneration in routine clinical practice.

PURPOSE: Evaluation of the cost and effectiveness of therapy for patients with the wet form of age-related macular degeneration (AMD) in routine clinical practice. METHODS: A retrospective multicentre evaluation of changes in the best-corrected visual acuity in applied kinds of therapy and a comparison with the cost of individual therapeutic procedures. RESULTS: An overall total of 788 eyes of 763 patients with an average age of 73.2 ± 8.6 years was evaluated for a 1-year minimum period. In the ranibizumab and pegaptanib therapy groups, a reduction of 1.3 letters (p = 0.303) and 1.4 letters (p = 0.197) was found, respectively. In the group of photodynamic therapy (PDT) with verteporfin, a reduction of 5.2 letters was achieved (p < 0.001). Under the conditions of routine practice in the Czech Republic, the annual cost is highest (EUR 5,467.63/patient) in patients with pegaptanib therapy. The annual cost in patients with ranibizumab therapy is lower by EUR 1,220.16. The cost is nearly half (EUR 2,783.65) in the group treated with PDT with verteporfin. CONCLUSION: An initiation of AMD therapy by ranibizumab is cost-effective as compared to pegaptanib. Both ranibizumab and pegaptanib are significantly more efficient as compared to PDT with verteporfin. Therapy with ranibizumab and pegaptanib, as compared to PDT with verteporfin, prevents the loss of 1 line of vision on the ETDRS chart for EUR 1,225.98 and 2,286.18, respectively.

Verteporfin photodynamic therapy for neovascular age-related macular degeneration: cohort study for the UK.

OBJECTIVES: The verteporfin photodynamic therapy (VPDT) cohort study aimed to answer five questions: (a) is VPDT in the NHS provided as in randomised trials?; (b) is 'outcome' the same in the nhs as in randomised trials?; (c) is 'outcome' the same for patients ineligible for randomised trials?; (d) is VPDT safe when provided in the NHS?; and (e) how effective and cost-effective is VPDT? DESIGN: Treatment register. SETTING: All hospitals providing VPDT in the NHS. PARTICIPANTS: All patients attending VPDT clinics. INTERVENTIONS: Infusion of verteporfin followed by infrared laser exposure is called VPDT, and is used to treat neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). The VPDT cohort study advised clinicians to follow patients every 3 months during treatment or active observation, retreating based on criteria used in the previous commercial 'TAP' (Treatment of Age-related macular degeneration with Photodynamic therapy) trials of VPDT. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution monocular best-corrected distance visual acuity (BCVA). Secondary outcomes were adverse reactions and events; morphological changes in treated nAMD (wet) lesions; and for a subset of patients, 6-monthly contrast sensitivity, generic and visual health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and resource use. Treated eyes were classified as eligible for the TAP trials (EFT), ineligible (IFT) or unclassifiable (UNC). RESULTS: Forty-seven hospitals submitted data for 8323 treated eyes in 7748 patients; 4919 eyes in 4566 patients were treated more than 1 year before the last data submission or had completed treatment. Of 4043 eyes with nAMD in 4043 patients, 1227 were classified as EFT, 1187 as IFT and 1629 as UNC. HRQoL and resource use data were available for about 2000 patients. The mean number of treatments in years 1 and 2 was 2.3 and 0.4 respectively. About 50% of eyes completed treatment within 1 year. BCVA deterioration in year 1 did not differ between eligibility groups. EFT eyes lost 11.6 letters (95% confidence interval 10.1 to 13.0 letters) compared with 9.9 letters in VPDT-treated eyes in the TAP trials. EFT eyes had poorer BCVA at baseline than IFT and UNC eyes. Adverse reactions and events were reported for 1.4% of first visits - less frequently than those reported in the TAP trials. Associations between BCVA in the best-seeing eye with HRQoL and community health and social care resource use showed that the 11-letter difference in BCVA between VPDT and sham treatment in the TAP trials corresponded to differences in utility of 0.012 and health and social service costs of £60 and £92 in years 1 and 2, respectively. VPDT provided an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of £170,000 over 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: VPDT was administered less frequently than in the TAP trials, with less than half of those treated followed up for > 1 year in routine clinical practice. Deterioration in BCVA over time in EFT eyes was similar to that in the TAP trials. The similar falls in BCVA after VPDT across the pre-defined TAP eligibility groups do not mean that the treatment is equally effective in these groups because deterioration in BCVA can be influenced by the parameters that determined group membership. Safety was no worse than in the TAP trials. The estimated cost per QALY was similar to the highest previous estimate. Although VPDT is no longer in use as monotherapy for neovascular AMD, its role as adjunctive treatment has not been fully explored. VPDT also has potential as monotherapy in the management of vascular malformations of the retina and choroid and with trials underway in neovascularisation due to myopia and polypoidal choroidopathy. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of three treatments for age-related macular degeneration.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of pegaptanib sodium and ranibizumab injections compared with photodynamic therapy (PDT) with verteporfin for the treatment of choroidal neovascularization secondary to age-related macular degeneration. METHODS: The analyses were performed using outcomes data from the pivotal trials for each treatment and the medicare reimbursable costs for each treatment and associated medical procedures. A multistate transition model with 3-month cycles was created to compare incremental medical costs associated with pegaptanib or ranibizumab versus PDT for patients with starting vision of 20/40, 20/80, and 20/200 Snellen equivalent. RESULTS: Two-year medical treatment costs ranged from $3,100 to $54,100 depending on treatment and lesion type. Photodynamic therapy was less costly and more effective than pegaptanib for predominantly classic and minimally classic lesions. Ranibizumab was not only more effective but also more costly than PDT for all lesion types. CONCLUSION: Compared with PDT, pegaptanib is inferior in both cost and effectiveness, whereas ranibizumab has a greater effectiveness. Because ranibizumab does not meet 1 of the common thresholds for being considered cost effective (<$50,000 per quality-adjusted life year), there is rationale to seek other therapies that are more cost effective.

Verteporfin photodynamic therapy cohort study: report 3: cost effectiveness and lessons for future evaluations.

PURPOSE: To report (1) the costs of verteporfin photodynamic therapy (VPDT) in routine treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD), (2) the relationship between health and social service costs and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), (3) the cost-effectiveness of VPDT versus a best supportive care (BSC) group who were assumed to have no active treatment, and (4) lessons for future cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs). DESIGN: The CEA of VPDT versus BSC that uses health-related quality of life (HrQoL), resource use, and visual acuity data from the United Kingdom (UK) VPDT Cohort Study. PARTICIPANTS: Data on VPDT use were collected from patients attending 45 ophthalmology provider units in the UK National Health Service, 15 units collected data on self-reported use of services. METHODS: Incremental costs of VPDT versus BSC were calculated from treatment costs, change in cost associated with declining BCVA, and difference in BCVA previously attributed to VPDT. Similarly, incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated from change in HRQoL associated with declining BCVA, giving an incremental cost per QALY of VPDT versus BSC over 2 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incremental costs (UK pounds [ pound]; United States dollars [$]); incremental QALYs; costs per QALY. RESULTS: The treatment costs of VDPT were pound 3026 ($4544) in year 1 and pound 845 ($1269) in year 2. For patients who used services, a 5-letter decrease in BCVA was associated with an increase in annual costs of approximately pound 110 ($165; 95% confidence intervals, approximately pound 48 [$72] to pound 174 [$261]). The incremental costs and QALYs for VPDT were pound 3514 ($5276) and 0.021, respectively, giving incremental costs per QALY gained of pound 170000 ($255000). CONCLUSIONS: Verteporfin photodynamic therapy is unlikely to be cost effective for patients with nAMD. This article provides realistic estimates of VPDT costs and the costs associated with declining vision. Future studies can follow this approach to assess accurately the cost effectiveness of new interventions for nAMD.

Photodynamic therapy with verteporfin in age-related macular degeneration: a systematic review of efficacy, safety, treatment modifications and pharmacoeconomic properties.

Photodynamic therapy (PDT) with verteporfin has been used less comprehensively in the treatment of exudative age-related macular degeneration (AMD), and specifically of choroidal neovascularization (CNV), since the advent of antiangiogenic therapies. Recently, there has been a renewed interest in PDT as an adjunct to these and other agents in the treatment of neovascular AMD. In light of this new development and the European Medicines Evaluation Agency's (EMEA) recent labelling decision to rescind approval for the use of PDT in occult CNV lesions, the present systematic review was undertaken to revisit the evidence supporting its clinical application. Photodynamic therapy provided the first pharmacological treatment for patients suffering from subfoveal CNV, the major cause of severe vision loss in AMD. Key clinical trials evaluating efficacy and safety have examined patients with all lesion subtypes, with the primary labelled indication (i.e. lesions containing a classic component of > or = 50% ) deriving from the results of the Treatment of Age-related Macular Degeneration with Photodynamic Therapy (TAP) Study. The subsequent TAP Study Group post hoc categorization of lesions as predominantly classic is open to question, however, as it appears that the overall efficacy in this group only may have reflected the especially strong response in 100% classic lesions. Based on a subgroup analysis of the Verteporfin in Photodynamic Therapy Study, the indication for PDT subsequently was expanded in some jurisdictions, including that of the EMEA, to include occult lesions with no classic component. However, the subsequent Visudyne in Occult Study found no benefit in 100% occult lesions, resulting in the EMEA rescinding its approval for this indication.

Cost-effectiveness sequential modeling of ranibizumab versus usual care in age-related macular degeneration.

AIMS: To assess effectiveness, cost, and cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab versus the current medical practices of treating age-related macular degeneration in France. METHODS: A simulation decision framework over 1 year compared ranibizumab versus the usual care using two effectiveness criteria: the "visual acuity improvement rate" (greater than 15 letters on the ETDRS scale) and the "rate of legal blindness avoided". Two decision trees included various sequences of current treatments, with or without ranibizumab. RESULTS: Ranibizumab appeared significantly more effective than the usual care (p < 0.001), providing greater treatment success rate of visual acuity improvement (48.8% versus 33.9%). The cost of the ranibizumab strategy was higher (9,123 euros over 1 year for ranibizumab versus 7,604 euros for the usual care) but the average cost-effectiveness was lower--18,721 euros/success for ranibizumab versus 22,543 euros/success for usual care (p < 0.001). Considering the "legal blindness avoided" success criterion, the ranibizumab strategy appeared significantly more effective (p < 0.001), providing greater treatment success rate for of legal blindness avoided than usual care (99.7% versus 93.1%) although it was more expensive (9,196 euros over 1 year for ranibizumab versus 5,713 euros for the usual care). CONCLUSION: Ranibizumab significantly improved the rate of visual acuity improvement and reduced the rate of legal blindness. Ranibizumab appeared significantly more cost-effective than the usual treatments in terms of visual acuity improvement.

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.

BACKGROUND: Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is characterized by loss of central vision and is the leading cause of blindness among persons over the age of 50 years in Canada. The wet form of AMD has 3 subtypes-occult, minimally classic, and predominantly classic. Photodynamic therapy (PDT) with verteporfin is indicated only for the category of predominantly classic wet AMD. Currently, there are no treatments available for the other AMD subtypes. Pegaptanib sodium was the first pharmacologic therapy approved in Canada for the treatment of subfoveal wet AMD regardless of subtype. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine the cost-effectiveness of pegaptanib versus PDT with verteporfin and versus standard care for the treatment of subfoveal wet AMD in patients aged 65 years in Canada. METHODS: A Markov model based on visual acuity in the better-seeing eye was developed. Clinical efficacy was taken from the clinical trials. Costs of treatment, comorbidities (eg, depression, fractures, need for assisted living), vision rehabilitation, visual aids, and adverse events were considered. Costs, utilities, and mortality were estimated from data from the available published literature. Costs were reported in 2004 Canadian dollars, and costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% per annum. Lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and vision years gained (VYGs) were estimated. Sensitivity analyses were performed to determine model robustness. RESULTS: Patients who received pegaptanib experienced more QALYs gained (4.17) and VYGs (3.83) compared with patients who received PDT (3.87 and 3.01, respectively) or standard care (3.96 and 3.26). Mean total costs per patient were greater in patients who received pegaptanib compared to those who received PDT or standard care ($20,016 vs $15,345 or $7669, respectively). The incremental cost per QALY in patients receiving pegaptanib compared to those receiving PDT was $49,052 and $59,039 for patients receiving pegaptanib versus standard care. The incremental cost per VYG was $20,401 and $21,559 with pegaptanib versus PDT and standard care, respectively. Sensitivity analyses found that the model was relatively robust to changes in various model parameters. CONCLUSION: The results of this analysis suggest that in Canada, pegaptanib is a cost-effective treatment for subfoveal wet AMD in elderly patients, regardless of lesion subtype, compared to PDT with verteporfin and to standard care.

[Cost-effectiveness of photodynamic therapy with verteporfin for choroidal neovascularization in age-related macular degeneration in routine clinical practice in Switzerland]. / Coût-efficacité du traitement par thérapie photodynamique à la verteporfine des membranes néovasculaires dans la dégénérescence maculaire liée à l'âge en pratique clinique en Suisse.

OBJECTIVES: Age-related macular degeneration is the leading cause of legal blindness in older people. Choroidal neovascularization (CNV) is treatable with photodynamic therapy with verteporfin (PDT) but is expensive. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of PDT in routine clinical practice in Switzerland. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Markov model was used to analyze the costs of PDT in routine clinical practice. It described patients moving between good or impaired vision (visual acuity [VA]>0.1) and highly impaired vision (VA<0.1). Costs for PDT were based on the results of the Donati open-labeled prospective clinical study. Costs for medical and social management of AMD patients were defined according to Grainer's study. RESULTS: The cost of PDT varied from 8,800 to 10,969 euros/patient/year. Ninety percent of the patients retained a VA > or =0.1. Health costs saved by keeping patients from moving to the highly impaired vision group was 4,248 euros/patient/year. Incremental costs per vision-year saved varied from 8,239 to 10,271 euros. Cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained at 5 years was 65,150 euros. DISCUSSION: PDT was found to be moderately cost-effective in Switzerland. The longer the follow-up, the more cost-effective Visudyne was. Cost-effectiveness is a country-dependent assessment and analyses should be done for each health care system. CONCLUSION: PDT was found to be cost-effective in Switzerland (category C of Laupaci's classification).

A value-based medicine comparison of interventions for subfoveal neovascular macular degeneration.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a value-based medicine analysis of clinical trials that evaluate the interventions of laser photocoagulation, intravitreal pegaptanib therapy, and photodynamic therapy (PDT) with verteporfin for the treatment of classic subfoveal choroidal neovascularization. DESIGN: Reference case cost-utility analysis using value-based medicine principles, which use patient-based utility values and standardized, input variable criteria. PARTICIPANTS: Data from participants in the Macular Photocoagulation Study, Pegaptanib for Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration Study, and the Treatment of Age-Related Macular Degeneration with Photodynamic Therapy Study. METHODS: Visual data were converted to a value-based format using time tradeoff utility analysis values from patients with macular degeneration. Costs were obtained from 2005 Medicare data. Outcomes (quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) and costs were discounted at a 3% annual rate. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Interventional QALYs gained, percent improvement in quality of life, and dollars spent per QALY gained. RESULTS: Laser photocoagulation confers a 4.4% (P = 0.03 versus pegaptanib therapy) improvement in quality of life for the reference case, whereas pegaptanib therapy confers a 5.9% improvement and PDT confers an 8.1% (P = 0.0002 versus pegaptanib therapy) improvement. The cost-utility associated with laser photocoagulation is $8179, that for pegaptanib therapy is $66978, and that for PDT is $31544. All sensitivity analyses remain within the conventional standards of cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Photodynamic therapy confers greater patient value than intravitreal pegaptanib therapy and laser photocoagulation for the treatment of classic subfoveal choroidal neovascularization. Despite the fact that laser photocoagulation is the most cost-effective intervention, both PDT and pegaptanib therapy deliver greater value, and thus are both preferred over laser photocoagulation. Using an economic measure, photodynamic therapy is the preferred treatment among these 3 interventions.

Using contrast sensitivity to estimate the cost-effectiveness of verteporfin in patients with predominantly classic age-related macular degeneration.

AIMS: To re-evaluate the cost-effectiveness of photodynamic therapy with verteporfin (Visudyne, Novartis AG, Switzerland) in patients with predominantly classic and classic choroidal neovascularization (CNV) owing to age-related macular degeneration (AMD), using new evidence on the impact of contrast sensitivity on health status. METHOD: A health economic model is used to synthesise the evidence on contrast sensitivity and treatment rates from the TAP Investigation with health state utilities and costs. Impairment of visual function is estimated using a Markov model to predict transitions between states of contrast sensitivity. Each state is associated with costs and a health state utility. Total expected costs and benefits for a cohort of patients over a defined number of cycles are calculated. The expected health state utility for each disease state was estimated using results from a study of 209 patients with AMD in Sheffield. The model includes the costs associated with treatment and monitoring in the verteporfin treatment arm and costs offset by delaying the deterioration of visual function. RESULTS: Beyond 3 years, the annual costs of the verteporfin arm are estimated to be less than the annual costs of the control arm, owing to the cost associated with higher blindness prevalence in the control arm. Over time, the results show that both the incremental utility and cost decreases. By 10 years, the estimated incremental cost-effectiveness is approximately pound20 996 per Quality-Adjusted Life Years. CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that the verteporfin therapy in the treatment for patients with predominantly classic and classic CNV owing to AMD is encouraging.

A preliminary benefit-risk assessment of verteporfin in age-related macular degeneration.

The prevalence of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is expected to increase significantly during the next 20 years. New treatment alternatives to laser photocoagulation are on the horizon - the first of these, photodynamic therapy (PDT) with verteporfin, was approved by the US FDA in 2000. In this article we present a preliminary risk-benefit assessment of verteporfin in AMD, focusing on the landmark randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies. The TAP (Treatment of Age-related macular degeneration with Photodynamic therapy) trial established the efficacy of PDT for classic subfoveal neovascularisation in AMD at 2 years follow-up. The VIP (Verteporfin in Photodynamic therapy) study concentrated on subfoveal occult-only lesions not included in the TAP study. After 2 years, treated eyes were less likely to experience visual loss. Exploratory analyses of TAP and VIP suggest that lesion size is a more significant predictor of the treatment benefit than either lesion composition or visual activity. The VIM (Visudyne in Minimally classic) trial altered the standard PDT light fluence rate in the treatment of subfoveal minimally classic lesions. This trial again demonstrated a beneficial effect for those receiving treatment with PDT. The VIO (Visudyne in Occult) trial, evaluating PDT in occult-only lesions as a confirmatory study of the VIP trial, did not achieve its primary end-point at 2 years. Further analyses are pending.PDT with verteporfin has an excellent safety profile that has been established with >1 million treatment applications. Cost-effectiveness data are limited but suggest that PDT may be a cost-effective treatment modality. Other FDA-approved treatments (pegaptanib, ranibizumab and bevacizumab) for neovascular AMD are discussed, as well as investigational substances such as anecortave acetate.

The cost-utility of photodynamic therapy in eyes with neovascular macular degeneration--a value-based reappraisal with 5-year data.

PURPOSE: To assess the value conferred by photodynamic therapy (PDT) and the cost-utility of PDT for the treatment of classic, subfoveal choroidal neovascularization associated with age-related macular degeneration (ARMD). DESIGN: Average cost-utility analysis utilizing clinical trial data, patient-based time tradeoff utility preferences, and a third party insurer cost perspective. METHODS: Five-year visual acuity data from the TAP (Treatment of Age-related Macular Degeneration With Photodynamic Therapy) Investigation were modeled into a 12-year, value-based, reference case, cost-utility model utilizing year 2004 Medicare costs and an outcome of dollar/QALY (dollars/quality-adjusted life-year). Discounting of outcomes and costs using net present value analysis with a 3% annual rate was performed as recommended by the Panel for Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. RESULTS: PDT with verteporfin (Visudyne) dye for classic subfoveal choroidal neovascularization confers an 8.1% quality of life (value) improvement over the 12-year life expectancy of the reference case, while during the last 8 years the value improvement is 9.5%. The average cost-utility of the intervention is dollar 31,103/QALY (quality-adjusted life-year). Extensive one-way sensitivity analysis values range from dollar 20,736/QALY if treatment efficacy is increased by 50% to dollar 62,207 if treatment efficacy is decreased by 50%, indicating robustness of the model. CONCLUSIONS: PDT using verteporfin dye to treat classic subfoveal choroidal neovascularization is a very cost-effective treatment by conventional standards. The marked improvement in cost-effectiveness compared with a previous report results from the facts that the treatment benefit increasingly accrues during 5 years of follow-up while the number of yearly treatments diminishes markedly during that time.

Drug pricing for a novel treatment for wet macular degeneration: using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios to ensure societal value.

OBJECTIVE: Health economic models can assist policy-makers in determining the value of novel treatments from the viewpoint of society. In this context, value is defined as the benefit of treatment, given its cost. A new treatment for wet age-related macular degeneration (AMD), juxtascleral administration of anecortave acetate, 15 mg for depot suspension (Retaane), is now in a late-phase clinical trial. In a theoretical analysis, we sought to determine the cost at which this treatment might offer economic value to society, using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). METHODS: A series of 1-year cost-utility models was created for the investigational treatment and standard treatment (photodynamic therapy [PDT] with verteporfin [Visudyne]). Value to society was defined in terms of theoretical associated ICERs (in US dollars): $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), $50,000/QALY, $20,000/QALY and $0/QALY, the point of economic indifference. Models were created from the societal perspective and included a patient-derived utility assessment involving regression equations to estimate time trade-off preferences, event probabilities derived from a randomized clinical trial comparing the safety and efficacy of anecortave administration and PDT with verteporfin, decision analysis and relevant costing information. RESULTS: An ICER of $100,000/QALY would be associated with an anecortave cost of $3022/vial, an ICER of $50,000/QALY with an anecortave cost of $2986/vial and an ICER of $20,000/QALY with an anecortave cost of $2964/vial. The point of economic indifference between anecortave administration and standard therapy would occur with an anecortave cost of $2950/vial. INTERPRETATION: In theory, an anecortave cost of $2986/vial is associated with an ICER of $50,000/QALY, the threshold used by many health technology assessment and reimbursement agencies.

Model study of AREDS antioxidant supplementation of AMD compared to Visudyne: a dominant strategy?

OBJECTIVES: In Ontario, Canada, in a cohort of all people initially aged 50-54 years, modeling whether the Age-Related Eye Disease Study (AREDS) antioxidant supplementation for stage 3 and 4 AMD would decrease the costs of photodynamic treatment with Visudyne. PERSPECTIVE: Third party payer, the Ontario Health Insurance Plan. METHODS: Using reported risk reductions, prevalence data by age and sex from the Beaver Dam studies, and yearly costs: AREDS 182.50 Canadian dollars, potential savings were calculated as the difference or incremental cost between the estimated medical costs for the untreated cohort of 17,000 Canadian dollars for Visudyne treatment of individuals with neovascularization and the same cohort if stage 3 and 4 AMD patients were treated with antioxidants, decreasing progression to neovascularization. Different scenarios were explored for sensitivity analysis of direct cost savings. RESULTS: For the Ontario cohort of approximately 788,000 aged 51-55 years in 2001, for photodynamic therapy of the untreated cohort, modeled costs were 1.7 billion Canadian dollars. AREDS treatment costs would be 513 million Canadian dollars. AREDS would reduce photodynamic therapy costs, a net saving of 431 million Canadian dollars, a saving of 547 Canadian dollars per person in the total cohort, or 6,753 Canadian dollars per stage 3 and 4 patient treated. To explore the sensitivity of this model to AMD incidence rather than prevalence data, Framingham incidence data were incorporated in the model: net savings of 70.3 million Canadian dollars were modeled using Framingham incidence data. CONCLUSION: Under reasonable assumptions, if the case progresses to wet AMD (1) AREDS with Visudyne is less expensive than Visudyne alone in every five-year time period for the cohort that is age 50-54 right now until they become 75-79; thus, the lifetime cost is lower; (2) AREDS with Visudyne yields more QALYs than Visudyne alone in every five-year interval; (3) under all but the most extreme assumptions, the conclusions reached are robust. Even when AREDS costs a little more, it yields more QALYs at a reasonable cost per QALY. Thus, AREDS antioxidant supplementation appears to be a dominant strategy for macular degeneration. Applied to the whole Canadian population, the potential medical cost savings for Visudyne treatment of neovascular AMD are 5.6 billion Canadian dollars in direct costs. These values would be tenfold higher for the USA, because of the currency and population size differences.