IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v39y2021i8d10.1007_s40273-021-01026-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost Effectiveness of Ranibizumab vs Aflibercept vs Bevacizumab for the Treatment of Macular Oedema Due to Central Retinal Vein Occlusion: The LEAVO Study

Author

Listed:
  • Becky Pennington

    (University of Sheffield)

  • Abualbishr Alshreef

    (University of Sheffield)

  • Laura Flight

    (University of Sheffield)

  • Andrew Metry

    (University of Sheffield)

  • Edith Poku

    (University of Sheffield)

  • Philip Hykin

    (NIHR Moorfields Biomedical Research Centre)

  • Sobha Sivaprasad

    (NIHR Moorfields Biomedical Research Centre)

  • A. Toby Prevost

    (King’s College London)

  • Joana C. Vasconcelos

    (King’s College London)

  • Caroline Murphy

    (King’s College London)

  • Joanna Kelly

    (King’s College London)

  • Yit Yang

    (Wolverhampton Eye Infirmary)

  • Andrew Lotery

    (University of Southampton)

  • Michael Williams

    (Queen’s University of Belfast)

  • John Brazier

    (University of Sheffield)

Abstract

Background We aimed to assess the cost effectiveness of intravitreal ranibizumab (Lucentis), aflibercept (Eylea) and bevacizumab (Avastin) for the treatment of macular oedema due to central retinal vein occlusion. Methods We calculated costs and quality-adjusted life-years from the UK National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective. We performed a within-trial analysis using the efficacy, safety, resource use and health utility data from a randomised controlled trial (LEAVO) over 100 weeks. We built a discrete event simulation to model long-term outcomes. We estimated utilities using the Visual-Functioning Questionnaire-Utility Index, EQ-5D and EQ-5D with an additional vision question. We used standard UK costs sources for 2018/19 and a cost of £28 per bevacizumab injection. We discounted costs and quality-adjusted life-years at 3.5% annually. Results Bevacizumab was the least costly intervention followed by ranibizumab and aflibercept in both the within-trial analysis (bevacizumab: £6292, ranibizumab: £13,014, aflibercept: £14,328) and long-term model (bevacizumab: £18,353, ranibizumab: £30,226, aflibercept: £35,026). Although LEAVO did not demonstrate bevacizumab to be non-inferior for the visual acuity primary outcome, the three interventions generated similar quality-adjusted life-years in both analyses. Bevacizumab was always the most cost-effective intervention at a threshold of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, even using the list price of £243 per injection. Conclusions Wider adoption of bevacizumab for the treatment of macular oedema due to central retinal vein occlusion could result in substantial savings to healthcare systems and deliver similar health-related quality of life. However, patients, funders and ophthalmologists should be fully aware that LEAVO could not demonstrate that bevacizumab is non-inferior to the licensed agents.

Suggested Citation

  • Becky Pennington & Abualbishr Alshreef & Laura Flight & Andrew Metry & Edith Poku & Philip Hykin & Sobha Sivaprasad & A. Toby Prevost & Joana C. Vasconcelos & Caroline Murphy & Joanna Kelly & Yit Yang, 2021. "Cost Effectiveness of Ranibizumab vs Aflibercept vs Bevacizumab for the Treatment of Macular Oedema Due to Central Retinal Vein Occlusion: The LEAVO Study," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(8), pages 913-927, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:39:y:2021:i:8:d:10.1007_s40273-021-01026-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-021-01026-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-021-01026-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40273-021-01026-5?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. Andrew R. Willan & Andrew H. Briggs & Jeffrey S. Hoch, 2004. "Regression methods for covariate adjustment and subgroup analysis for non‐censored cost‐effectiveness data," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(5), pages 461-475, May.
    2. Rita Faria & Manuel Gomes & David Epstein & Ian White, 2014. "A Guide to Handling Missing Data in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Conducted Within Randomised Controlled Trials," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(12), pages 1157-1170, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Abualbishr Alshreef & Allan J. Wailoo & Steven R. Brown & James P. Tiernan & Angus J. M. Watson & Katie Biggs & Mike Bradburn & Daniel Hind, 2017. "Cost-Effectiveness of Haemorrhoidal Artery Ligation versus Rubber Band Ligation for the Treatment of Grade II–III Haemorrhoids: Analysis Using Evidence from the HubBLe Trial," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 1(3), pages 175-184, September.
    2. Mohamed El Alili & Johanna M. van Dongen & Jonas L. Esser & Martijn W. Heymans & Maurits W. van Tulder & Judith E. Bosmans, 2022. "A scoping review of statistical methods for trial‐based economic evaluations: The current state of play," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(12), pages 2680-2699, December.
    3. Andrea Gabrio & Catrin Plumpton & Sube Banerjee & Baptiste Leurent, 2022. "Linear mixed models to handle missing at random data in trial‐based economic evaluations," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(6), pages 1276-1287, June.
    4. Qi Cao & Erik Buskens & Hans L. Hillege & Tiny Jaarsma & Maarten Postma & Douwe Postmus, 2019. "Stratified treatment recommendation or one-size-fits-all? A health economic insight based on graphical exploration," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 475-482, April.
    5. Jasjeet Singh Sekhon & Richard D. Grieve, 2012. "A matching method for improving covariate balance in cost‐effectiveness analyses," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(6), pages 695-714, June.
    6. Andrea Manca & Neil Hawkins & Mark J. Sculpher, 2005. "Estimating mean QALYs in trial‐based cost‐effectiveness analysis: the importance of controlling for baseline utility," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(5), pages 487-496, May.
    7. Rachael Hunter & Gianluca Baio & Thomas Butt & Stephen Morris & Jeff Round & Nick Freemantle, 2015. "An Educational Review of the Statistical Issues in Analysing Utility Data for Cost-Utility Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(4), pages 355-366, April.
    8. John Hutton, 2012. "‘Health Economics’ and the evolution of economic evaluation of health technologies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(1), pages 13-18, January.
    9. Rissanen, Elisa & Karjalainen, Piia & Kiviruusu, Olli & Kankaanpää, Eila & Aronen, Eeva T. & Haula, Taru & Sääksvuori, Lauri & Vornanen, Riitta & Linnosmaa, Ismo, 2024. "Cost-effectiveness of a parenting program to reduce children’s behavioral problems among families receiving child protection services and other family support services – A randomized controlled trial," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    10. Janet MacNeil Vroomen & Iris Eekhout & Marcel G. Dijkgraaf & Hein van Hout & Sophia E. de Rooij & Martijn W. Heymans & Judith E. Bosmans, 2016. "Multiple imputation strategies for zero-inflated cost data in economic evaluations: which method works best?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 17(8), pages 939-950, November.
    11. Richard M. Nixon & David Wonderling & Richard D. Grieve, 2010. "Non‐parametric methods for cost‐effectiveness analysis: the central limit theorem and the bootstrap compared," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(3), pages 316-333, March.
    12. Laura Pirhonen & Kristian Bolin & Elisabeth Hansson Olofsson & Andreas Fors & Inger Ekman & Karl Swedberg & Hanna Gyllensten, 2019. "Person-Centred Care in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Alongside a Randomised Controlled Trial," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 3(4), pages 495-504, December.
    13. Carmen Selva-Sevilla & Elena Conde-Montero & Manuel Gerónimo-Pardo, 2020. "Bayesian Regression Model for a Cost-Utility and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Comparing Punch Grafting Versus Usual Care for the Treatment of Chronic Wounds," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-21, May.
    14. Sabrina Storgaard Sørensen & Kjeld Møller Pedersen & Ulla Møller Weinreich & Lars Ehlers, 2017. "Economic Evaluation of Community-Based Case Management of Patients Suffering From Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 413-424, June.
    15. Mathias Kifmann & Luigi Siciliani, 2017. "Average‐Cost Pricing and Dynamic Selection Incentives in the Hospital Sector," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(12), pages 1566-1582, December.
    16. William Hollingworth & Christopher G. Fawsitt & Padraig Dixon & Larisa Duffy & Ricardo Araya & Tim J. Peters & Howard Thom & Nicky J. Welton & Nicola Wiles & Glyn Lewis, 2020. "Cost-Effectiveness of Sertraline in Primary Care According to Initial Severity and Duration of Depressive Symptoms: Findings from the PANDA RCT," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 4(3), pages 427-438, September.
    17. Andrew Briggs, 2012. "Statistical Methods for Cost-effectiveness Analysis Alongside Clinical Trials," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 50, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    18. Richard Grieve & Richard Nixon & Simon G. Thompson & John Cairns, 2007. "Multilevel models for estimating incremental net benefits in multinational studies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(8), pages 815-826, August.
    19. Matthew Franklin & James Lomas & Simon Walker & Tracey Young, 2019. "An Educational Review About Using Cost Data for the Purpose of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(5), pages 631-643, May.
    20. Kelvin K. W. Chan & Feng Xie & Andrew R. Willan & Eleanor M. Pullenayegum, 2018. "Conducting EQ-5D Valuation Studies in Resource-Constrained Countries: The Potential Use of Shrinkage Estimators to Reduce Sample Size," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(1), pages 26-33, January.

    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:39:y:2021:i:8:d:10.1007_s40273-021-01026-5. 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.