IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v29y2011i2p107-131.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost Effectiveness of Treatments for Wet Age-Related Macular Degeneration

Author

Listed:
  • Paul Mitchell
  • Lieven Annemans
  • Richard White
  • Meghan Gallagher
  • Simu Thomas

Abstract

Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a leading cause of blindness in people aged ≥50 years. Wet AMD in particular has a major impact on patient quality of life and imposes substantial burdens on healthcare systems. This systematic review examined the cost-effectiveness data for current therapeutic options for wet AMD. PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched for all articles reporting original cost-effectiveness analyses of wet AMD treatments. The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and Cochrane Library databases were searched for all wet AMD health technology assessments (HTAs). Overall, 44 publications were evaluated in full and included in this review. A broad range of cost-effectiveness analyses were identified for the most commonly used therapies for wetAMD(pegaptanib, ranibizumab and photodynamic therapy [PDT] with verteporfin). Three studies evaluated the cost effectiveness of bevacizumab in wet AMD. A small number of analyses of other treatments, such as laser photocoagulation and antioxidant vitamins, were also found. Ranibizumab was consistently shown to be cost effective for wet AMD in comparison with all the approved wet AMD therapies (four of the five studies identified showed ranibizumab was cost effective vs usual care, PDT or pegaptanib); however, there was considerable variation in the methodology for cost-effectiveness modelling between studies. Findings from the HTAs supported those from the PubMed and EMBASE searches; of the seven HTAs that included ranibizumab, six (including HTAs for Australia, Canada and the UK) concluded that ranibizumab was cost effective for the treatment of wet AMD; most compared ranibizumabwith PDT and/or pegaptanib. By contrast, HTAs at best generally recommended pegaptanib or PDT for restricted use in subsets of patients with wet AMD. In the literature analyses, pegaptanib was found to be cost effective versus usual/best supportive care (including PDT) or no treatment in one of five studies; the other four studies found pegaptanib was of borderline cost effectiveness depending on the stage of disease and time horizon. PDT was shown to be cost effective versus usual/best supportive care or no treatment in five of nine studies; two studies showed that PDT was of borderline cost effectiveness depending on baseline visual acuity, and two showed that PDT was not cost effective. We identified no robust studies that properly evaluated the cost effectiveness of bevacizumab in wet AMD. Copyright Springer International Publishing AG 2011

Suggested Citation

  • Paul Mitchell & Lieven Annemans & Richard White & Meghan Gallagher & Simu Thomas, 2011. "Cost Effectiveness of Treatments for Wet Age-Related Macular Degeneration," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 107-131, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:29:y:2011:i:2:p:107-131
    DOI: 10.2165/11585520-000000000-00000
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2165/11585520-000000000-00000
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2165/11585520-000000000-00000?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Antoine Lafuma & Antoine Brézin & Stefania Lopatriello & Klaus Hieke & Julia Hutchinson & Viviane Mimaud & Gilles Berdeaux, 2006. "Evaluation of Non-Medical Costs Associated with Visual Impairment in Four European Countries," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 193-205, February.
    2. Antoine Lafuma & Antoine Brezin & Francis Fagnani & Viviane Mimaud & Mounir Mesbah & Gilles Berdeaux, 2006. "Nonmedical economic consequences attributable to visual impairment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 7(3), pages 158-164, September.
    3. Sorrel Wolowacz & Neil Roskell & Steven Kelly & Fiona Maciver & Chris Brand, 2007. "Cost Effectiveness of Pegaptanib for the Treatment of Age-Related Macular Degeneration in the UK," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 25(10), pages 863-879, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Robert P Finger & Eva Fenwick & Christoph W Hirneiss & Arthur Hsueh & Robyn H Guymer & Ecosse L Lamoureux & Jill E Keeffe, 2013. "Visual Impairment as a Function of Visual Acuity in Both Eyes and Its Impact on Patient Reported Preferences," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(12), pages 1-6, December.
    2. Hiroshi Tamura & Rei Goto & Yoko Akune & Yoshimune Hiratsuka & Shusuke Hiragi & Masakazu Yamada, 2015. "The Clinical Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Screening for Age-Related Macular Degeneration in Japan: A Markov Modeling Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(7), pages 1-20, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bjoern Schwander, 2014. "Early health economic evaluation of the future potential of next generation artificial vision systems for treating blindness in Germany," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 1-10, December.
    2. Yuliya Chuvarayan & Robert P. Finger & Juliane Köberlein-Neu, 2020. "Economic burden of blindness and visual impairment in Germany from a societal perspective: a cost-of-illness study," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(1), pages 115-127, February.
    3. Marta Medina-Baena & Olga Cejudo-Corbalán & Fernando Labella-Quesada & Eloy Girela-López, 2023. "Cost-Effectiveness of Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant in Naïve and Previously Treated Patients with Diabetic Macular Edema," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(8), pages 1-11, April.
    4. Basel Barakat & Ahmad Taha & Ryan Samson & Aiste Steponenaite & Shuja Ansari & Patrick M. Langdon & Ian J. Wassell & Qammer H. Abbasi & Muhammad Ali Imran & Simeon Keates, 2021. "6G Opportunities Arising from Internet of Things Use Cases: A Review Paper," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-29, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:29:y:2011:i:2:p:107-131. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.