PurposeThe 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).MethodsA 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionThis 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.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40266-014-0216-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
In this observational study, pemetrexed, then docetaxel and erlotinib were the most frequently prescribed second-line treatments, which is in line with international guidelines. Erlotinib was most commonly prescribed to that subset of patients expected to gain the greatest benefit (those with adenocarcinoma, never-smokers and females). Pemetrexed was more frequently prescribed than docetaxel, with physicians most commonly choosing to prescribe the former agent because of its tolerability profile.
Syringe preparation times for ranibizumab intravitreal injections are significantly shorter with the PFS than with the vial. The time saved by using the PFS may benefit physicians and nurses, and the simplicity of the injection preparation process with the PFS is advantageous.
The prevalence of myopic CNV was lower than that reported in previous studies, possibly because of differences in age distribution in the populations studied. The frequencies of treatment administered were similar to those reported in previous studies; however, a cost-effectiveness comparison could not be made owing to lack of data in previous studies.
Utility data are important in Asia, where the need for health economic evaluations is growing. A literature review was conducted across international and local bibliographical databases in four languages to evaluate the utilities for chronic hepatitis C (CHC) patients in Asia. The results showed a lack of research on the humanistic burden of CHC in Asia. Using mapping, the estimated utilities for CHC patients in Asia ranged between 0.68 and 0.86. The utilities of CHC patients were lower than that of healthy controls, with the differences ranging between 0.032 and 0.261 units. On-treatment utility values declined by 0.07-0.13 units for subjects without sustained virological response and by 0.03-0.06 units for sustained virological response subjects. The results provide empirical data on utility values among CHC patients in Asia that can be used in future cost-effectiveness analysis or health technology assessment.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.