Advertisement

Intravitreal Ranibizumab for the Treatment of Visual Impairment Due to Choroidal Neovascularization Associated with Rare Diseases: Cost-Effectiveness in the UK

  • Grant McCarthy
  • Elisabetta Fenu
  • Natalie BennettEmail author
  • Chrissy Almond
Original Research

Abstract

Introduction

This study sought to determine the cost-effectiveness of intravitreal ranibizumab compared with best supportive care (BSC; considered to be no active treatment) for the treatment of visual impairment due to choroidal neovascularization (CNV) associated with causes other than neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) and pathologic myopia (PM) in a UK setting.

Methods

An individual patient-level simulation model was developed to estimate the lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of ranibizumab vs. BSC. Regression analyses, performed on patient-level data collected within the pivotal phase III MINERVA trial, modelled visual acuity (VA) progression while patients remained on treatment. Patient utilities were modelled as a function of VA in both eyes and resource use estimates were based on trial data or the literature. Costs were evaluated from the perspective of the UK National Health Service and personal social services, with future costs and health outcomes discounted at 3.5% per annum. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted.

Results

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for intravitreal ranibizumab was £1363 per QALY compared to BSC and was associated with an incremental benefit of 1.06 QALYs and an incremental cost of £1444 per patient. Drug and administration costs of intravitreal ranibizumab were offset by the prevention of the development of blindness and its associated costs, while the increase in benefits was driven by a reduction in mortality risk and an improved health-related quality of life attributed to an improvement in VA. The findings were robust to a range of sensitivity analyses and ranibizumab consistently remained cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000–30,000 per QALY gained for all sensitivity analyses.

Conclusion

Intravitreal ranibizumab is a highly cost-effective intervention for the treatment of CNV due to causes other than nAMD and PM as it delivers substantial QALY gains to patients while making cost savings vs. BSC.

Funding

Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd.

Keywords

Choroidal neovascularization Cost-effectiveness Economic evaluation Ophthalmology Ranibizumab VEGF 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Funding

This study was funded by Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd, Surrey, UK. Funding for the article processing charges was provided by Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd. All authors had full access to all of the data in this study and take complete responsibility for the integrity of the data and accuracy of the data analysis.

Editorial Assistance

Editorial assistance in the preparation of this manuscript was provided by Dr. Amanda Prowse, Lochside Medical Communications. Support for this assistance was funded by Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd, Surrey, UK.

Authorship

All named authors meet the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship for this article, take responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole, and have given their approval for this version to be published.

Disclosures

Grant McCarthy is an employee of BresMed Health Solutions which was contracted and paid by Novartis to develop the cost-effectiveness model. Elisabetta Fenu is an employee of BresMed Health Solutions which was contracted and paid by Novartis to develop the cost-effectiveness model. Natalie Bennett is an employee at Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd. Chrissy Almond is an employee of BresMed Health Solutions which was contracted and paid by Novartis to develop the cost-effectiveness model. The authors did not receive direct payment as a result of this work outside of their normal salary payments.

Compliance with Ethics Guidelines

This study is based on previously conducted studies and does not involve any new studies of human participants or animal subjects performed by any of the authors. This study (a cost-effectiveness analysis) did not require ethical approval as it did not involve human participants or animal subjects.

Data Availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Supplementary material

12325_2019_894_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (236 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 236 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Flaxman SR, Bourne RRA, Resnikoff S, et al. Global causes of blindness and distance vision impairment 1990–2020: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2017;5(12):e1221–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Weber ML, Heier JS. Choroidal neovascularization secondary to myopia, infection and inflammation. Dev Ophthalmol. 2016;55:167–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lai TYY, Staurenghi G, Lanzetta P, et al. Efficacy and safety of ranibizumab for the the treatment of choroidal neovascularization due to uncommon cause: twelve-month results of the MINERVA study. Retina. 2018;38(8):1464–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stuart A, Ford JA, Duckworth S, Jones C, Pereira A. Anti-VEGF therapies in the treatment of choroidal neovascularisation secondary to non-age-related macular degeneration: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2015;5(4):e007746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cohen SY, Laroche A, Leguen Y, Soubrane G, Coscas GJ. Etiology of choroidal neovascularization in young patients. Ophthalmology. 1996;103(8):1241–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rishi P, Gupta A, Rishi E, Shah BJ. Choroidal neovascularization in 36 eyes of children and adolescents. Eye (Lond). 2013;27(10):1158–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Submacular Surgery Trials Research Group. Health- and vision-related quality of life among patients with ocular histoplasmosis or idiopathic choroidal neovascularization at enrollment in a randomized trial of submacular surgery: submacular surgery trials report no. 5. Arch Ophthalmol. 2005;123(1):78–88.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wittenborn JS, Zhang X, Feagan CW, et al. The economic burden of vision loss and eye disorders among the United States population younger than 40 years. Ophthalmology. 2013;120(9):1728–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Garcia GA, Khoshnevis M, Gale J, et al. Profound vision loss impairs psychological well-being in young and middle-aged individuals. Clin Ophthalmol. 2017;11:417–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Campochiaro PA. Molecular pathogenesis of retinal and choroidal vascular diseases. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2015;49:67–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Todorich B, Yiu G, Hahn P. Current and investigational pharmacotherapeutic approaches for modulating retinal angiogenesis. Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol. 2014;7(3):375–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wolf S, Balciuniene VJ, Laganovska G, et al. RADIANCE: a randomized controlled study of ranibizumab in patients with choroidal neovascularization secondary to pathologic myopia. Ophthalmology. 2014;121(3):682–92 e2.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rosenfeld PJ, Brown DM, Heier JS, et al. Ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(14):1419–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ikuno Y, Ohno-Matsui K, Wong TY, et al. Intravitreal aflibercept injection in patients with myopic choroidal neovascularization: the MYRROR study. Ophthalmology. 2015;122(6):1220–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schmidt-Erfurth U, Kaiser PK, Korobelnik JF, et al. Intravitreal aflibercept injection for neovascular age-related macular degeneration: ninety-six-week results of the VIEW studies. Ophthalmology. 2014;121(1):193–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jian L, Panpan Y, Wen X. Current choroidal neovascularization treatment. Ophthalmologica. 2013;230(2):55–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    European Medicines Agency (EMA). European public assessment report (EPAR), Lucentis® Type II Variation—License extension 2016. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Assessment_Report_-_Variation/human/000715/WC500217894.pdf. Accessed Apr 2018.
  18. 18.
    Chakravarthy U, Biundo E, Saka RO, Fasser C, Bourne R, Little JA. The economic impact of blindness in Europe. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2017;24(4):239–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Koberlein J, Beifus K, Schaffert C, Finger RP. The economic burden of visual impairment and blindness: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2013;3(11):e003471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pezzullo L, Streatfeild J, Simkiss P, Shickle D. The economic impact of sight loss and blindness in the UK adult population. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Claxton L, Hodgson R, Taylor M, Malcolm B, Jacob RP. Simulation modelling in ophthalmology: application to cost effectiveness of ranibizumab and aflibercept for the treatment of wet age-related macular degeneration in the United Kingdom. Pharmacoeconomics. 2017:35(2):237–248.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB). The criteria for certification 2017. http://www.rnib.org.uk/eye-health/registering-your-sight-loss/criteria-certification. Accessed Oct 2017.
  23. 23.
    Hodgson R, Reason T, Trueman D, et al. Challenges associated with estimating utility in wet age-related macular degeneration: a novel regression analysis to capture the bilateral nature of the disease. Adv Ther. 2017;34(10):2360–2370.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Vallejo-Torres L, Garcia-Lorenzo B, Castilla I, et al. On the estimation of the cost-effectiveness threshold: why, what, how? Value Health. 2016;19(5):558–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Claxton L, Malcolm WA, Hodgson R. A comparison of modelling techniques: patient simulation verse Markov modelling in ophthalmology. Value Health. 2014;17(7):A558–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bennett N, John L, Likhar N, Agrawal R, Amoaka WM. Clinical efficacy and safety of current interventions for choroidal neovascularization associated with rare diseases: a systematic literature review. Adv Ther. 2018;35(5):591–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Parodi MB, Iacono P, Kontadakis DS, Zucchiatti I, Cascavilla ML, Bandello F. Bevacizumab vs photodynamic therapy for choroidal neovascularization in multifocal choroiditis. Arch Ophthalmol. 2010;128(9):1100–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Slade J, Edwards R. My Voice 2015: the views and experiences of blind and partially sighted people in the UK 2015. Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB). http://www.rnib.org.uk/knowledge-and-research-hub-research-reports-general-research/my-voice. Accessed Apr 2018.
  29. 29.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). NICE guidance [NG82]: age-related macular degeneration. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/indevelopment/gid-cgwave0658. Accessed Jan 2018.
  30. 30.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). TA298: Ranibizumab for the treatment of visual impairment due to choroidal neovascularisation (CNV) secondary to pathological myopia (PM). 2013. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta298/resources/ranibizumab-for-treating-choroidal-neovascularisation-associated-with-pathological-myopia-82600740108997. Accessed Nov 2017.
  31. 31.
    Moorfields Eye Hospital. Patient Information—A&E—subconjunctival haemorrhage 2015. http://www.moorfields.nhs.uk/sites/default/files/a-e-subconjunctival-haemorrhage.pdf. Accessed Oct 2017.
  32. 32.
    Office for National Statistics. National life tables. 2016. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/lifeexpectancies. Accessed Oct 2017.
  33. 33.
    McCrone P, Dhanisiri S, Patel A, Knapp M, Lawton-Smith S. Paying the price: the cost of mental health care in England to 2026. 2008. https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/sites/default/files/Paying-the-Price-the-cost-of-mental-health-care-England-2026-McCrone-Dhanasiri-Patel-Knapp-Lawton-Smith-Kings-Fund-May-2008_0.pdf. Accessed Nov 2017.
  34. 34.
    Meads C, Hyde C. What is the cost of blindness? Br J Ophthalmol. 2003;87(10):1201–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Department of Health (DoH). NHS reference costs 2015 to 2016. 2016. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/577083/Reference_Costs_2015-16.pdf. Accessed Oct 2017.

Copyright information

© Springer Healthcare Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Grant McCarthy
    • 1
  • Elisabetta Fenu
    • 1
  • Natalie Bennett
    • 2
    Email author
  • Chrissy Almond
    • 1
  1. 1.BresMed Health Solutions LtdSheffieldUK
  2. 2.Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK LimitedCamberleyUK

Personalised recommendations