Valutazione economica del trattamento con impianto intravitreale biodegradabile di desametasone di pazienti affetti da edema maculare secondario a occlusione della vena retinica, in Italia

  • J. W. Kowalski
  • E. Hayward
  • S. Mazzi
  • G. Pardhanani
  • C. M. Almond
  • D. Trueman
  • M. A. Adena

Economic evaluation with dexamethasone biodegradable intravitreal implant for the treatment of patients with macular edema following retinal vein occlusion in Italy


Macular edema (ME) secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO) is an important cause of vision loss resulting in substantial morbidity in terms of reduced health-related quality of life and functioning. Until recently, no approved pharmacological treatment options were available.

The present analysis is an economic evaluation of an innovative, new treatment specifically approved for this indication (ME secondary to RVO), from the perspective of the Italian national healthcare system.

Two clinical trials (GENEVA 008 and 009) were conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the biodegradable dexamethasone intravitreal implant compared with sham in patients with ME due to RVO. Outcomes demonstrated that the treatment can significantly both reduce the risk of vision loss and improve the speed and incidence of visual improvement.

For this analysis a previous study conducted for NICE was adapted to the Italian context. Based on the clinical results supplemented by expert opinion, a Markov model was developed for cost-utility analysis, running from 65 to 100 years (or death) and including six health states, defined in terms of best corrected visual acuity (BCVA). Utility was assessed as a function of BCVA. In the present analysis, unit costs are referred to the Italian healthcare system.

In the base case, the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) resulted equal to €31,148. An extensive sensitivity analysis showed that results remained below €45,000.

This analysis results suggest that dexamethasone intravitreal implant is cost-effective when compared with observation, in patients with ME following RVO.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Rogers S, McIntosh RL, Cheung N, et al., International Eye Disease Consortium. The prevalence of retinal vein occlusion: pooled data from population studies from the United States, Europe, Asia, and Australia. Ophthalmology 2010; 117: 313–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Klein R, Klein B, Moss S, et al. The epidemiology of retinal vein occlusion: the Beaver Dam Eye Study. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 2000; 98: 133–43PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McIntosh RL, Rogers SL, Lim L, et al. Natural history of Central Retinal Vein Occlusion: an evidence-based systematic review. Ophthalmology 2010; 117: 1113–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rogers SL, McIntosh RL, Lim L, et al. Natural history of Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion: an evidence-based systematic review. Ophthalmology 2010; 117: 1094–101PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fekrat S, Shea AM, Hammill BG, et al. Resource use and costs of branch and central retinal vein occlusion in the elderly. Curr Med Res Opin 2010; 26: 223–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lafuma A, Brézin A, Lopatriello S, et al. Evaluation of non_medical costs associated with visual impairment in four European countries: France, Italy, Germany and the UK. Pharmacoeconomics 2006; 24: 193–205PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    (No authors listed). Evaluation of grid pattern photocoagulation for macular edema in central vein occlusion. The Central Vein Occlusion Study Group M Report. Ophthalmology 1995; 102: 1425–33Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Campochiaro PA, Hafiz G, Shah SM, et al. Ranibizumab for macular edema due to retinal vein occlusions: implication of VEGF as a critical stimulator. Mol Ther 2008; 16: 791–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hung K, Lee SM, Lee SY, et al. Intravitreal bevacizumab (avastin) in the treatment of macular edema associated with perfused retinal vein occlusion. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther 2010; 26: 85–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ip MS, Scott IU, VanVeldhuisen PC, et al., SCORE Study Reseach Group. A randomized trial comparing the efficacy and safety of intravitreal triamcinolone with observation to treat vision loss associated with macular edema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion: the Standard Care vs Corticosteroid for Retinal Vein Occlusion (SCORE) Study report 5. Arch Ophthalmol 2009; 127: 1101–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kupperman BD, Blumenkranz MS, Haller JA, et al., Dexamethasone DDS Phase II Study Group. Randomized controlled study of an intravitreous dexamethasone drug delivery system in patients with persistent macular edema. Arch Ophthalmol 2007; 125: 309–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Haller JA, Bandello F, Belfort R, et al., for the OZURDEX GENEVA Study Group. Randomized, sham-controlled trial of dexamethasone intravitreal implant in patients with macular edema due to retinal vein occlusion. Ophthalmology 2010; 117: 1134–46PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, et al. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Third edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005: 379Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sonnenberg FA, Beck JR. Markov models in medical decision making: a practical guide. Med Decis Making 1993; 13: 322–38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brown GC, Brown MM, Sharma S, et al. Incremental cost-effectiveness of laser therapy for visual loss secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 2002; 9: 1–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Colquitt JL, Jones J, Tan SC, et al. Ranibizumab and pegaptanib for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Tehcnol Assess 2008; 12: iii–iv, ix-201Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sandercock P, Berge E, Dennis M, et al. A systematic review of the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and barriers to implementation of thrombolytic and neuroprotective therapy for acute ischaemic stroke in the NHS. Health Technol Assess 2002; 6: 1–112PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shyangdan D, Cummins E, Lois N, et al. Dexamethasone implants in the treatment of macular oedema due to retinal vein occlusion: a single technology appraisal. Aberdeen HTA group 2010. (accesso del 4/4/2011)
  19. 19.
  20. 20.
    Allergan. Data on file 2009iGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Associazione Italiana di Economia Sanitaria (AIES). Proposte di linee guida per la valutazione economica degli interventi sanitari. Pharmacoeconomics-Italian Research Articles 2009; 11: 89–93Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gupta OP, Brown GC, Brown MM. A value-based medicine cost-utility analysis of idiopathic epiretinal membrane surgery. Am J Ophthalmol 2008; 145: 923–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hayreh SS, Zimmerman MB, Podhajsky P. Incidence of various types of retinal vein occlusion and their recurrence and demographic characteristics. Am J Ophthalmol 1994; 117: 429–41PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Allergan. Data on file 2010nGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Christ SL, Lee DJ, Lam BL, et al. Assessment of the effect of visual impairment on mortality through multiple health pathways: structural equation modeling. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2008; 49: 3318–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    World Health Organization. Life tables for WHO Member States 2008 (accesso del 5/4/2011)
  27. 27.
    Brown MM, Brown GC, Sharma S, et al. Quality of life associated with unilateral and bilateral good vision. Ophthalmology 2001; 108: 643–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hays RD. Health-related quality of life preferences measures for vision studies.,12,VFQ-UI (accesso del 7/4/2011)
  29. 29.
    National Eye Institute — National Institutes of Health. (accesso del 7/4/2011)
  30. 30.
    Kowalski JW, Rentz AM, Walt JG, et al. Rasch analysis in the development of a simplified version of the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire-25 for utility estimation. Qual Life Res 2011 Aug 4 [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Regione Lombardia. Deliberazione n. 8/9173 del 30.3.2009. Nomenclatore TariffarioGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    L’Informatore Farmaceutico 2010. Milano: Elsevier, 2010Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Klein R, Moss SE, Meuer SM, et al. The 15-year cumulative incidence of retinal vein occlusion: the Beaver Dam Eye Study. Arch Ophthalmol 2008; 126: 513–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    McCabe C, Claxton K, Culyer AJ. The NICE cost-effectiveness threshold. What it is and what that means. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26: 733–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. W. Kowalski
    • 1
  • E. Hayward
    • 2
  • S. Mazzi
    • 3
  • G. Pardhanani
    • 4
  • C. M. Almond
    • 5
  • D. Trueman
    • 6
  • M. A. Adena
    • 7
  1. 1.Allergan Inc.IrvineUSA
  2. 2.Allergan EAMEMarlowUK
  3. 3.Wolters Kluwer Health ItalyMilanoItalia
  4. 4.Allergan SpARomaItalia
  5. 5.BresMed Health SolutionsSheffieldUK
  6. 6.Abacus InternationalBicesterUK
  7. 7.Datalytics Pty LtdCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations