Abstract

To quantify the cost-utility ratio of the ranibizumab Port Delivery System (PDS; SUSVIMO) versus intravitreal ranibizumab injections for treating neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) based upon Archway Phase 3 Trial data. Cost-utility analysis. Archway Phase 3 Clinical Trial nAMD participants previously responsive to anti-VEGF therapy were randomized 3:2. Two hundred forty received PDS refills q 24 weeks and 162 received ranibizumab injections. Ophthalmic patient, time tradeoff utilities, direct medical and societal cost perspectives, 12-year, 1-year, and 5-year timelines, United States 2022 real dollars, and a 3% annual discount rate were employed. Utilities were adjusted for nAMD conversion in fellow eyes during the 12-year, mean participant life expectancy. Premature death associated with severe vision loss was integrated as per the population-based Salisbury Eye Evaluation Study. Quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) accruals, costs, and incremental and average cost-utility ratios in $/QALY (dollars expended per QALY gained). Versus no therapy, the 1-year PDS QALY gain was 0.0156 (6.8%) versus 0.0063 (0.82%) for intravitreal injections (P < 0.001), whereas the respective 12-year QALY gains were 1.714 (28%) and 1.639 (26.8%) (P= 0.99). One-year direct PDS ophthalmic costs totaled $21 825 with 2 ranibizumab fills, whereas ranibizumab injection therapy totaled $18 405 with 11.8 injections. The 1-year incremental PDS $/QALY versus injections was cost effective at $75 497/QALY. Five-year PDS therapy was not incrementally cost effective at $304 108/QALY, nor was the 12-year therapy at $761 646/QALY. Average 12-year cost-utility ratios were $78773/QALY for the PDS and $47 917/QALY for injection therapy. Adding-$476 442 12-year offsetting societal costs netted $314 521 to society per PDS participant versus $370 958 per participant for injection therapy. Ranibizumab PDS therapy was not incrementally cost effective versus ranibizumab injection therapy at 12 or 5 years but was at 1 year. Injection therapy had a more favorable 12-year average cost-utility ratio. Vision gain was the major determinant of participant value gain and was the same for both interventions. Both interventions were highly cost effective utilizing average cost-utility analysis with the societal cost perspective. Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.