No abstract

Purpose: To compare the direct costs associated with the dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEX-i) in treatment-naïve and previously treated eyes with diabetic macular edema (DME) in a real clinical setting. Methods: Retrospective and single-center study conducted in a real clinical scenario. Consecutive DME patients, either naïve or previously treated with vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors (anti-VEGF), who received treatment with one or more DEX-i between May 2015 and December 2020, and who were followed-up for a minimum of 12 months, were included in the study. The cost analysis was performed from the perspective of the Andalusian Regional Healthcare Service. The primary effectiveness endpoint was the probability of achieving an improvement in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) ≥ 15 ETDRS letters after 1 year of treatment. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of different improvements in BCVA was calculated. Results: Forty-nine eyes, twenty-eight (57.1%) eyes from the treatment-naïve group and twenty-one (42.9%) from the previously treated group, were included in the analysis. The total cost of one year of treatment was significantly lower in the treatment-naïve eyes than in the previously treated eyes [Hodges-Lehmann median difference: EUR 819.1; 95% confidence interval (CI): EUR 786.9 to EUR 1572.8; p < 0.0001]. The probability of achieving a BCVA improvement of ≥15 letters at month 12 was significantly greater in the treatment-naïve group than in the previously treated group (rate difference: 0.321; 95% CI: 0.066 to 0.709; p = 0.0272). The Cochran–Mantel–Haenszel Odds Ratio of achieving a BCVA improvement of ≥15 letters at month 12 was 3.55 (95% CI: 1.09 to 11.58; p = 0.0309). In terms of ICER, the treatment-naïve group showed cost savings of EUR 7704.2 and EUR 5994.2 for achieving an improvement in BCVA ≥ 15 letters at month 12 and at any of the measured time points, respectively. Conclusions: DEX-i was found to be more cost-effective in treatment-naïve eyes than in those previously treated with anti-VEGF. Further studies are needed to determine the most cost-effective treatment based on patient profile.