Abstract
Introduction
Wet age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a chronic eye condition that causes severe deterioration of vision and even blindness. Current wet AMD treatment in the UK involves the vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors ranibizumab and aflibercept. Patients with wet AMD require frequent and long-term monitoring for treatment to be effective, contributing to a substantial resource burden at wet AMD centers. The European license for ranibizumab was recently updated with an individualized ‘treat and extend’ (T&E) regimen, comprising a structured monitoring and treatment protocol. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab T&E versus aflibercept within a UK setting.
Methods
An individual patient-level simulation model was developed utilizing treatment effects from a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. The model was conducted from a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective over a lifetime horizon and the base case utilized probabilistic sensitivity analysis to assess uncertainty in the model. Additional scenario analyses were conducted to assess the impact of changes to the model inputs.
Results
Ranibizumab T&E was found to be more effective and less costly than aflibercept, providing, on average, an additional 1.058 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and a cost-saving of £19,604 over a lifetime horizon. At list price, ranibizumab T&E was found to be cost-effective versus aflibercept in 100% of simulations at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY. The robustness of the results was tested in several scenario analyses; ranibizumab T&E was found to be more effective, and less costly, than aflibercept in the vast majority of cases.
Conclusion
This evaluation suggests that treating patients with ranibizumab according to the T&E regimen could be a better use of NHS resources than aflibercept, and could, therefore, be considered as a first-line regimen for patients with wet AMD in the UK.
Funding
Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Limited.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Wet age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a chronic eye condition in which damage to the macula, the central region of the retina specialized for visual acuity (VA), results in progressive deterioration of vision [1]. In the UK, wet AMD accounts for more than half of all cases of severe sight impairment. In 2013, over 338,000 individuals in the UK were affected by wet AMD, with 50,000 cases resulting in blindness [2–4].
Current treatment for wet AMD in the UK relies upon the use of pharmacological agents that specifically target and inhibit vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), preventing the formation of abnormal blood vessels implicated in the progression of the disease. Two intravitreal VEGF inhibitors are currently licensed in Europe and approved by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) for the treatment of wet AMD in the UK: ranibizumab (Lucentis®, Genentech Inc./Novartis) and aflibercept (Eylea®, Bayer plc) [5, 6].
Until recently, the licensed dosing regimen for ranibizumab in Europe involved fixed monthly dosing until maximum VA is achieved, followed by monitoring and treatment intervals determined by the physician and based on disease activity (ranibizumab pro-re-nata [PRN; as required]) [5]. The clinical workload associated with the frequent follow-up required with this regimen is substantial and, furthermore, the demand in ophthalmology is increasing with the ageing population [7, 8]. Real-world studies have revealed that ongoing capacity issues at some wet AMD clinics have prevented the maintenance of regular monitoring visits, ultimately leading to delays in follow-up and patients receiving fewer injections than required, which may cause unnecessary permanent vision loss [9, 10]. Moreover, key trials for ranibizumab PRN have demonstrated a wide variability in the number of injections required by patients over time, suggesting heterogeneity in disease reactivation intervals between patients and supporting the need for alternative, individualized treatment regimens [11–13].
In September 2014, the European license for ranibizumab was updated to include a new ‘treat and extend’ (T&E) regimen, in which patients are treated monthly until maximum VA is achieved and/or there are no signs of disease activity, then treatment intervals are extended in a stepwise manner of no more than two weeks at a time until signs of disease activity or visual impairment recur (see Fig. 1) [5]. This offers patients a truly flexible, yet structured, dosing regimen. The effectiveness of treating wet AMD patients with ranibizumab according to the T&E regimen has been demonstrated in two pivotal randomized controlled trials (RCTs) [14–16]. With T&E, the number of clinic visits required is expected to reduce in the long-term compared with current regimens that treat patients as necessary. Monitoring visits are not required between injection visits, hence a T&E regimen may help to reduce the capacity issues at wet AMD centers across the UK.
In clinical practice in the UK, both ranibizumab and aflibercept are recommended as first-line agents for the treatment of wet AMD and the decision to use either agent is left to the treating physician. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab when administered according to the recently approved T&E regimen versus aflibercept for the treatment of wet AMD in the UK National Health Service (NHS). The dosing regimen evaluated for aflibercept was that stated in the European license: patients are given one injection per month for three consecutive doses, followed by one injection every two months; after the first 12 months, the treatment interval may be extended based on visual and/or anatomic outcomes [6, 17].
Methods
An individual patient-level simulation (PLS) was run in Microsoft Excel 2010® (Microsoft Corporation). The evaluation was conducted from a UK NHS and personal social services perspective over a lifetime horizon with a discount rate of 3.5% applied to both costs and health benefits, consistent with the NICE Methods Guide [18].
Model Structure
Patients were modeled on an individual basis, moving through the model one at a time. The two treatment arms were ranibizumab T&E and aflibercept, and the effectiveness of each therapy was measured according to monthly best-corrected VA (BCVA) change, in Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters.
A total of 1000 first-order iterations of individual patients were run to inform 1000 second-order iterations, where input values were drawn randomly from assigned probability distributions. The distributions used to inform each of the parameters for the second-order iterations can be found in the supplementary appendices. A number of scenario analyses were performed using 1000 first-order iterations to test the assumptions used in the base case analysis.
Patient Population
Baseline characteristics of the patient population were taken from the EXCITE phase III study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00275821), the most recent study conducted in VEGF inhibitor-naïve wet AMD patients with individual patient-level data available [13]. Compared to subjects from recent UK-based clinical studies such as the IVAN trial (ISRCTN.com identifier: ISRCTN92166560) and ‘The Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration Database’, the population used in the model was of a similar age (see Table 1). Only patients with a baseline VA <73 ETDRS letters were included in the evaluation in alignment with NICE guidance for the use of ranibizumab and aflibercept [19, 20]. Patients with a baseline VA >73 ETDRS letters were evaluated in a scenario analysis.
Clinical Effectiveness
The relative effectiveness of ranibizumab T&E versus aflibercept was derived from a network meta-analysis (NMA) of RCTs, populated from a previously performed systematic literature review (SLR) and updated with data for ranibizumab T&E from the LUCAS (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01127360) and TREX trials (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01748292) [14–16]. Further details of the SLR methodology can be found in the supplementary material. The equivalence of the ranibizumab dosing regimens used in the trials informing the NMA required three separate networks to be developed, one for months 1–3, one for months 1–12 (which informs months 4–12 in the model) and one for months 1–24 (which informs months 13–24 in the model). The only trial connecting the ranibizumab T&E dosing regimen to the NMA was the TREX trial, which only reported mean BCVA change in the intention-to-treat population at 12 months. Results were estimated from baseline to month 24 using the method by Ding and Fu [21].
Mean monthly BCVA change for ranibizumab T&E was modeled stochastically using the mean relative effectiveness of ranibizumab T&E with respect to ranibizumab PRN from the NMA (presented in Table 2), and the mean monthly BCVA for ranibizumab PRN was estimated stochastically using data from the IVAN trial, an independent UK-based RCT that evaluated the effectiveness of ranibizumab according to the PRN regimen [22]. Mean monthly BCVA change for aflibercept was then estimated stochastically using the relative effectiveness of ranibizumab T&E versus aflibercept, with the distribution derived from the NMA (the median relative effectiveness data are presented in Fig. 2, and the mean relative effectiveness data used in the model are presented in Table 2). For each patient, values were drawn at random from normal distributions derived from the means and standard deviations. Due to the uncertainty of the data for ranibizumab T&E in the month 1–3 network, ranibizumab T&E was not included. It was therefore assumed in the base case analysis that for months 1–3, the efficacy of ranibizumab T&E versus ranibizumab PRN was the same, and as a conservative estimate, the efficacy of ranibizumab T&E versus aflibercept in months 1–3 was also assumed to be the same.
In the base case analysis, patients were assumed to receive either ranibizumab T&E or aflibercept over a maximum of 24 months. Beyond 24 months, BCVA was modeled using natural history data from a meta-analysis by Wong et al., and after treatment discontinuation, BCVA was modeled from Frisen and Frisen and Elliot et al. [23–25]. Adverse event rates were not included in the model, since the VIEW trials (ClinicalTrials.gov identifers: NCT00509795 and NCT00637377) found there to be no clinically meaningful differences in adverse event rates between ranibizumab and aflibercept [26].
Costs and Resource Use
The key costs incorporated in the model were drug acquisition costs, treatment visit costs, monitoring visit costs, and the cost of blindness. For this model, the number of treatment and monitoring visits for the first 24 months of treatment were taken from the LUCAS RCT for ranibizumab T&E, and from the aflibercept NICE single technology appraisal (STA) costing template for aflibercept [14, 15, 27]. In the base case analysis, it was assumed that all patients were treated according to a ‘one-stop service model’, in which patients are monitored and treated (if needed) within the same appointment. The cost of a monitoring visit was, therefore, only applied to the number of monitoring visits over and above the number of treatment visits. The costs of treatment and monitoring visits can be found in Table 2. If the BCVA in either the study eye or the fellow eye fell below 35 letters, treatment was terminated in that eye; if both eyes reached a BCVA of <35 letters, the cost of blindness was applied. Details of the resource utilization for the cost of blindness can be found in the supplementary appendices.
Health-Related Quality of Life and Mortality
Health outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), with mean utilities estimated for both the study eye and fellow eye each month using a regression analysis of a real-world data set obtained from Czoski-Murray et al. [28]. In the base case analysis, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was modeled as a function of BCVA in both the study and fellow eye, and assumed a correlation between the two eyes. Age-specific all-cause mortality for the general population was estimated from UK life tables, with different relative risks applied to individuals with some and severe visual impairment, to reflect the increased mortality risk associated with vision loss (see Table 3) [29, 30].
A summary of the unit costs and resource use estimates used in the base case analysis is provided in Table 2. Further details of the other model inputs can be found in the supplementary material.
Scenario Analyses
A number of scenario analyses were performed to explore any uncertainty in the assumptions used within the model. Details of any model inputs that were adjusted for the scenario analyses can be found in the supplementary appendices. One-way sensitivity analyses were also performed on the principal model parameters and the tornado plot can be found in the supplementary appendices.
Proportion of Patients Treated According to the One-Stop Service Model
The base case analysis assumed all patients were treated according to the one-stop service model. The extent to which this assumption affects the cost-effectiveness of the ranibizumab T&E regimen was tested in two scenario analyses, where the proportion of patients treated according to the one-stop service model was reduced to 50% for ranibizumab T&E and aflibercept, separately. The other 50% of patients were assumed to be treated according to the two-stop service model, in which patients are reviewed at one appointment (monitoring visit) and return for a second appointment to receive treatment (treatment visit).
Alternative Sources for Treatment and Monitoring Visits
A number of real-world evidence studies have reported the yearly monitoring and treatment visits required when patients are treated with ranibizumab according to the T&E regimen. As a scenario analysis, the number of treatment and monitoring visits for ranibizumab T&E in years 1 and 2 were taken from the real-world evidence study by Arnold et al. [31] (7.5 and 5.5 treatment visits in years 1 and 2, respectively; 7.9 and 6.7 monitoring visits in years 1 and 2, respectively). An additional analysis was performed taking the year 1 treatment visits for ranibizumab T&E from the TREX study (10.1 visits), assuming the number of monitoring visits was the same, and assuming they were maintained in year 2 [16].
Patient Access Scheme
Scenario analyses were performed to investigate the utilization of a Patient Access Scheme (PAS) price for both ranibizumab and aflibercept. In the absence of knowing the confidential PAS discount for either drug, four scenario analyses were performed, applying a 25% and 50% discount to each drug separately, and to both therapies at the same time.
Quality of Life Estimates
Two scenario analyses were performed to explore the use of different regression models to estimate the HRQoL of patients throughout the model. The first scenario considered HRQoL as a function of VA in both the study eye and the fellow eye assuming no correlation (compared with the base case, in which both eyes were modeled assuming a correlation), and the second scenario included an interaction term for blindness, with a blindness threshold implemented for patients with a BCVA of <35 letters in both eyes. Details of the alternative regression analysis models for estimating HRQoL can be found in Table 3.
Extended Treatment Period
A scenario analysis was performed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the two treatments over a treatment period of 5 years. Patients could be treated with ranibizumab T&E or aflibercept for a maximum of 5 years. Mean monthly BCVA change was modeled up to 24 months as in the base case analysis then remained constant beyond this point up to a maximum of 5 years, after which BCVA was modeled according to natural history data. The number of treatment and monitoring visits in years 3–5 for ranibizumab T&E and aflibercept were assumed to be the same. Treatment visits were 3.7 per year, based on the real-world study by Tufail et al. [9] and monitoring visits were 4 per year, based upon the assumption of a maximum treatment interval of 12 weeks as used in the LUCAS trial [14].
Cost of Blindness
A scenario analysis removing the cost of blindness was performed to investigate the effect of this parameter on the cost-effectiveness of the two treatments.
Baseline Visual Acuity
NICE guidance for the use of ranibizumab and aflibercept states only patients with a VA <73 letters are eligible for treatment [19, 20]. As such, only patients satisfying this criterion were included in the base case analysis. A scenario analysis was performed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of the two treatments in patients with baseline VA >73 letters.
Clinical Effectiveness
Scenario analyses were performed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab T&E with changes to the clinical effectiveness. The first assumed the relative effectiveness of ranibizumab T&E to be 50% less versus aflibercept, and the second assumed both drugs to have the same effectiveness. In addition, once the effectiveness of both drugs was set to the same, two scenarios were run to evaluate the effect of reducing the drug acquisition costs of both treatments by 50%. A further analysis was performed adjusting the relative effectiveness of ranibizumab T&E versus aflibercept in months 1–3 to that reported in the month 1–12 model of the NMA.
Compliance with Ethics Guidelines
This article is based on previously conducted studies and does not involve any new studies of human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
Results
Base Case Results
Results from the base case analysis are shown in Table 4. After running 1000 second-order iterations of 1000 first-order iterations, ranibizumab T&E was found to be dominant over aflibercept, and was associated with a mean incremental benefit of 1.058 QALYs and a cost-saving of £19,604 over a lifetime horizon. The probabilistic second-order iterations are presented graphically in Fig. 3 where it can be seen that ranibizumab T&E was cost-effective in 100% of simulations at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY.
Scenario Analyses Results
The results of the scenario analyses that were employed to explore some of the key assumptions in the model are presented in Table 5. These demonstrate that the base case results are robust to changes in the model inputs and assumptions. Even with a 50% discount on the list price of aflibercept, ranibizumab T&E was still found to be dominant. It was found that the cost of blindness and the clinical efficacy derived from the NMA were the parameters driving the model to the greatest extent.
Discussion
To the knowledge of the authors at the time of publication, this is the first economic evaluation to investigate the cost-effectiveness of the recently approved ranibizumab T&E regimen versus aflibercept. The base case analysis found that ranibizumab T&E was likely to be both a more effective and less costly option (at list price) than aflibercept for patients with wet AMD within a UK setting. This cost difference was almost entirely due to the cost of blindness being much lower for ranibizumab T&E versus aflibercept.
A number of additional scenario analyses were performed to assess the impact of changes in the various model inputs and ranibizumab T&E was found to dominate aflibercept in the vast majority of scenarios, demonstrating the robustness of the results. In the absence of knowing the confidential PAS discounts for both treatments, a set of scenario analyses were run to test hypothetical discounts. Even when a 50% discount is applied to the list price of aflibercept, ranibizumab T&E was still found to be dominant, providing an extra 1.055 QALYs and a cost-saving of £15,406 over a lifetime horizon. Moreover, another scenario analysis found that even after removing the cost of blindness from both treatment arms, ranibizumab T&E was still the more cost-effective treatment option, providing an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £1417 per QALY gained, much lower than the commonly accepted £20,000 willingness-to-pay threshold. Overall, the scenario analyses demonstrate that even in extreme scenarios, ranibizumab T&E still provides value for money to the NHS.
Prior studies have suggested that the T&E regimen would provide socioeconomic benefits and this economic evaluation supports these suggestions [32, 33]. As the population continues to age and more patients are diagnosed with wet AMD, it is vital that clinical services continue to adapt to cope with the increased demand being seen in ophthalmology, and the introduction of the T&E regimen across the NHS could help alleviate this [7, 8]. In the USA, the T&E regimen is currently the most commonly employed treatment approach for wet AMD, with approximately 78% of retina specialists favoring this style of treatment [34]. Furthermore, the long-term benefits of ranibizumab T&E on visual outcomes have been demonstrated in a number of real-world observational studies [35, 36]. In the largest series of long-term outcomes in wet AMD to date, treatment with ranibizumab T&E was associated with more treatments and fewer visits than ranibizumab PRN, and visual outcomes were found to be superior for ranibizumab T&E [36]. Moreover, treatment with ranibizumab according to the T&E regimen provides additional benefits to wet AMD patients themselves. Patients are provided with a truly individualized treatment regimen and the ability to have both monitoring and treatment at the same appointment. This necessitates fewer hospital visits and less travelling for patients, many of whom may have sight and mobility challenges [33]. The flexible, yet structured, T&E regimen also provides certainty for patients that their disease will be adequately and continually monitored and treated.
The principal strength of this study was in the use of an individual PLS model, which was able to model both eyes independently, allowing incorporation of BCVA in the fellow eye, which contributes to patients’ overall HRQoL. In addition, BCVA was estimated directly as a continuous variable, rather than artificially dividing it into a number of mutually exclusive health states with an assumed HRQoL (as would be the case with a Markov model which has been used in previous ophthalmology economic evaluations) [19, 37]. The clinical effectiveness data for ranibizumab T&E was taken from an NMA with robust methodology, providing accurate estimates of the effects of ranibizumab T&E in the absence of head-to-head RCT data. However, it should be noted that only two RCTs provide data on the efficacy of the ranibizumab T&E regimen (more details can be found in the supplementary material).
On the other hand, the use of the NMA meant that in the model both ranibizumab T&E and aflibercept had to be compared with ranibizumab PRN, and that the base monthly BCVA change for ranibizumab PRN had to be taken from another data source, the IVAN trial. In addition, different sources had to be used to derive the number of injection and monitoring visits for each treatment arm and the patient baseline characteristics that informed the model. Although it is recognized that a wide variety of sources were used for data inputs to the model, no major differences in baseline characteristics were identified across all of the clinical studies that informed the model inputs, which supports the synthesis of their results. A key driver of the costs in the model was the cost of blindness. A number of economic evaluations report various estimates for the cost of blindness in the UK. Therefore, a conservative approach was taken based on that used previously by NICE, and the most up-to-date sources were used where possible [19, 20, 37]. A further limitation of this analysis is the confidential nature of the PAS discounts provided to the NHS for both ranibizumab and aflibercept. Despite this, scenario analyses demonstrated the dominance of ranibizumab T&E even if a 50% discount is applied to the list price of aflibercept.
In addition, the NMA used a random effects model, adapted from Ding and Fu [21]. For each treatment within each study, the longitudinal NMA model was based on estimates of the change from baseline in BCVA and their variance. However, the variances were not available for more than 50% of the time points; for ranibizumab T&E, the TREX trial was the only trial that connected the regimen to the network, and only reported mean BCVA change at month 12. The missing variances were, therefore, imputed following the approach of Dakin et al. [38]. Although this approach is justified, the lack of data contributes to uncertainty in the NMA results.
As ranibizumab T&E is increasingly implemented in clinical practice, further studies are needed to collect real-world data comparing the resource use associated with this new regimen with the existing licensed aflibercept regimen. In addition, the cost-effectiveness of patients switching between VEGF inhibitor therapies following treatment failure has not been fully investigated. A number of studies have evaluated the clinical effectiveness of switching between VEGF inhibitors following treatment failure but the majority of these have been small, retrospective studies. Larger, phase IV prospective studies are needed to investigate the effectiveness of switching between VEGF inhibitors further, and the Safety and Efficacy of Switching From Aflibercept to Ranibizumab in Patients With nAMD trial (SAFARI; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02161575) is one such trial on the horizon. Allowing patients to switch between different VEGF inhibitors following treatment failure may provide the ability to maintain VA longer term, however, further economic analyses will need to be performed to establish whether switching between treatments is cost-effective for the NHS.
Conclusions
Ranibizumab T&E allows a flexible, yet structured, monitoring and treatment regimen for patients with wet AMD from the start of treatment, an element that the European license for aflibercept does not currently allow in the first year of treatment. This study has shown that ranibizumab T&E is likely to be a more effective and less costly treatment option compared with the currently licensed regimen of aflibercept within the UK setting.
References
Freund KB, Korobelnik JF, Devenyi R, Framme C, Galic J, Herbert E, et al. Treat-and-extend regimens with anti-VEGF agents in retinal diseases: a literature review and consensus recommendations. Retina (Philadelphia, Pa). 2015;35(8):1489–506.
Bunce C, Xing W, Wormald R. Causes of blind and partial sight certifications in England and Wales: April 2007–March 2008. Eye (London, England). 2010;24(11):1692–9.
Menon G, Walters G. New paradigms in the treatment of wet AMD: the impact of anti-VEGF therapy. Eye. 2009;23(Suppl 1):S1–7.
Owen CG, Jarrar Z, Wormald R, Cook DG, Fletcher AE, Rudnicka AR. The estimated prevalence and incidence of late stage age related macular degeneration in the UK. Br J Ophthalmol. 2012;96(5):752–6.
European Medicines Agency (EMA). Lucentis 10 mg/ml solution for injection. Summary of Product Characteristics. 2009. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Product_Information/human/000715/WC500043546.pdf. Accessed 11 Feb 2016.
European Medicines Agency (EMA). Eylea 40 mg/ml solution for injection in pre-filled syringe. Summary of product characteristics. 2012. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Product_Information/human/002392/WC500135815.pdf. Accessed Feb 2016.
The Royal College of Ophthalmologists. Increasing demand on hospital eye services risks patients losing vision. 2016. https://www.rcophth.ac.uk/2016/03/increasing-demand-on-hospital-eye-services-risks-patients-losing-vision/. Accessed 18 Mar 2016.
Amoaku W, Blakeney S, Freeman M, Gale R, Johnston R, Kelly SP, et al. Action on AMD. Optimising patient management: act now to ensure current and continual delivery of best possible patient care. Eye. 2012;26(Suppl 1):S2–21.
Tufail AXW, Johnston R, Akerele T, McKibbin M, Downey L, Natha S, Chakravarthy U, Bailey C, Khan R, Antcliff R, Armstrong S, Varma A, Kumar V, Tsaloumas M, Mandal K, Bunce C. The neovascular age-related macular degeneration database: multicenter study of 92 976 ranibizumab injections: report 1: visual acuity. Ophthalmology. 2014;121(5):1092–101.
Oubraham H, Cohen SY, Samimi S, Marotte D, Bouzaher I, Bonicel P, et al. Inject and extend dosing versus dosing as needed: a comparative retrospective study of ranibizumab in exudative age-related macular degeneration. Retina (Philadelphia, Pa). 2011;31(1):26–30.
Abraham P, Yue H, Wilson L. Randomized, double-masked, sham-controlled trial of ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration: PIER study year 2. Am J Ophthalmol. 2010;150(3):315–24.e1.
Regillo CD, Brown DM, Abraham P, Yue H, Ianchulev T, Schneider S, et al. Randomized, double-masked, sham-controlled trial of ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration: PIER Study year 1. Am J Ophthalmol. 2008;145(2):239–48.
Schmidt-Erfurth U, Eldem B, Guymer R, Korobelnik JF, Schlingemann RO, Axer-Siegel R, et al. Efficacy and safety of monthly versus quarterly ranibizumab treatment in neovascular age-related macular degeneration: the EXCITE study. Ophthalmology. 2011;118(5):831–9.
Berg K, Hadzalic E, Gjertsen I, Forsaa V, Berger LH, Kinge B, et al. Ranibizumab or bevacizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration according to the lucentis compared to avastin study treat-and-extend protocol: two-year results. Ophthalmology. 2016;123(1):51–9.
Berg K, Pedersen TR, Sandvik L, Bragadottir R. Comparison of ranibizumab and bevacizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration according to LUCAS treat-and-extend protocol. Ophthalmology. 2015;122(1):146–52.
Wykoff CC, Croft DE, Brown DM, Wang R, Payne JF, Clark L, et al. Prospective trial of treat-and-extend versus monthly dosing for neovascular age-related macular degeneration: TREX-AMD 1-year results. Ophthalmology. 2015;122(12):2514–22.
National Health Service North East Treatment Advisory Group. Aflibercept (Eylea®) for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. 2012. http://www.netag.nhs.uk/files/appraisal-reports/Aflibercept%20for%20AMD%20-%20NETAG%20appraisal%20report%20-%20-Jan2013-%20-%20WEB%20VERSION.pdf. Accessed 18 Mar 2016.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. 2013. https://www.nice.org.uk/article/PMG9/chapter/1-Introduction. Accessed Feb 2016.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). NICE Technology Appraisal Guidance [TA294]. Aflibercept solution for injection for treating wet age related macular degeneration. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta294. Accessed Feb 2016.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). NICE Technology Appraisal Guidance [TA155]. Ranibizumab and pegaptanib for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration. 2008. http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/TA155. Accessed 13 Oct 2015.
Ding Y, Fu H. Bayesian indirect and mixed treatment comparisons across longitudinal time points. Stat Med. 2013;32(15):2613–28.
Chakravarthy U, Harding SP, Rogers CA, Downes SM, Lotery AJ, Culliford LA, et al. Alternative treatments to inhibit VEGF in age-related choroidal neovascularisation: 2-year findings of the IVAN randomised controlled trial. Lancet (London, England). 2013;382(9900):1258–67.
Elliott DB, Yang KC, Whitaker D. Visual acuity changes throughout adulthood in normal, healthy eyes: seeing beyond 6/6. Optom Vis Sci Offi Publ Am Acad Optom. 1995;72(3):186–91.
Frisen L, Frisen M. How good is normal visual acuity? A study of letter acuity thresholds as a function of age. Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie Albrecht von Graefe’s Archive Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1981;215(3):149–57.
Wong TY, Chakravarthy U, Klein R, Mitchell P, Zlateva G, Buggage R, et al. The natural history and prognosis of neovascular age-related macular degeneration: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. Ophthalmology. 2008;115(1):116–26.
Heier JS, Brown DM, Chong V, Korobelnik JF, Kaiser PK, Nguyen QD, et al. Intravitreal aflibercept (VEGF trap-eye) in wet age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology. 2012;119(12):2537–48.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Aflibercept solution for injection for treating wet age related macular degeneration. 2013. Costing template. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta294/resources. Accessed Feb 2016.
Czoski-Murray C, Carlton J, Brazier J, Young T, Papo NL, Kang HK. Valuing condition-specific health states using simulation contact lenses. Value Health J Int Soc Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2009;12(5):793–9.
National Life Tables, United Kingdom, 2012-2014: Office for National Statistics; September 2015. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lifetables/national-life-tables/2012-2014/index.html. Accessed Dec 2015.
Christ SL, Lee DJ, Lam BL, Zheng DD, Arheart KL. Assessment of the effect of visual impairment on mortality through multiple health pathways: structural equation modeling. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008;49(8):3318–23.
Arnold JJ, Campain A, Barthelmes D, Simpson JM, Guymer RH, Hunyor AP, et al. Two-year outcomes of “treat and extend” intravitreal therapy for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology. 2015;122(6):1212–9.
Gupta OP, Shienbaum G, Patel AH, Fecarotta C, Kaiser RS, Regillo CD. A treat and extend regimen using ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration clinical and economic impact. Ophthalmology. 2010;117(11):2134–40.
Spaide R. Ranibizumab according to need: a treatment for age-related macular degeneration. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007;143(4):679–80.
Stone TW. Preferences and trends (PAT) survey. Toronto: Am Soc Retina Spec (ASRS); 2013.
Rayess N, Houston SKS III, Gupta OP, Ho AC, Regillo CD. Three year treatment outcomes for neovascular age-related macular degeneration using a “treat and extend” regimen. Am J Ophthalmol. 2014;. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2014.09.011.
Gillies MC, Campain A, Barthelmes D, Simpson JM, Arnold JJ, Guymer RH, et al. Long-term outcomes of treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration: data from an observational study. Ophthalmology. 2015;122(9):1837–45.
Regnier SA, Malcolm W, Haig J, Xue W. Cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab versus aflibercept in the treatment of visual impairment due to diabetic macular edema: a UK healthcare perspective. ClinicoEcon Outcomes Res CEOR. 2015;7:235–47.
Dakin HA, et al. Mixed treatment comparison of repeated measurements of a continuous endpoint: an example using topical treatments for primary open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Stat Med. 2011;30(20):2511–35.
Monthly Index of Medical Specialities (MIMS). Available at: http://www.mims.co.uk/drugs/eye/diagnostic-and-surgical. Accessed Jun 2016.
Department of Health. NHS Reference Costs 2014-2015. National schedule of reference costs: the main schedule. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nhs-reference-costs-2014-to-2015. Accessed 19 Jan 2016.
Acknowledgments
All costs associated with the development of this manuscript, and the article processing charges and open access fee for this publication were funded by Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Limited. All named authors meet the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship for this manuscript, take responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole, and have given final approval to the version to be published. No further support was provided to the authors with regards to medical writing, editorial or other assistance.
Disclosures
Ruth Pulikottil-Jacob is an employee of Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Limited. Wrik Ghosh, Rose Wickstead, and Jeanette Kusel are employees of Costello Medical Consulting Ltd., Lindsay Claxton and Matthew Taylor are employees of York Health Economics Consortium, and Kelly Fleetwood is an employee of Quantics, all of whom were contracted by Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Limited to work on this study.
Compliance with Ethics Guidelines
This article is based on previously conducted studies and does not involve any new studies of human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Enhanced content
To view enhanced content for this article go to http://www.medengine.com/Redeem/BBD4F06049B3BD03.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ghosh, W., Wickstead, R., Claxton, L. et al. The Cost-Effectiveness of Ranibizumab Treat and Extend Regimen Versus Aflibercept in the UK. Adv Ther 33, 1660–1676 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-016-0367-9
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-016-0367-9