Taylor Matthew, Serbetci Elçin, Ferreira Alberto, Gairy Kerry, Lewis Lily, Blouin Julie, Mitchell Paul
York Health Economics Consortium Ltd, University of York , York , UK.
J Med Econ. 2014 Jun;17(6):423-34. doi: 10.3111/13696998.2014.909435. Epub 2014 Apr 22.
This study compares the cost-effectiveness of intravitreal ranibizumab vs observation and/or laser photocoagulation for treatment of macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion in a UK-based model.
A Markov model was constructed using transition probabilities and frequency of adverse events derived using data from the BRAVO, CRUISE, and HORIZON trials. Outcomes associated with treatments and health states were combined to predict overall health costs and outcomes for cohorts treated with each option.
In branch retinal vein occlusion, ranibizumab produced a gain of 0.518 quality-adjusted life years at an incremental cost of £8141, compared with laser photocoagulation. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £15,710 per quality-adjusted life year, and the incremental cost per month free from blindness was £658. In central retinal vein occlusion, ranibizumab produced a gain of 0.539 quality-adjusted life years at an incremental cost of £9216, compared with observation only. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £17,103, and the incremental cost per month free from blindness was £423.
These incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are below the £20,000-30,000 range typically accepted as a threshold for cost-effectiveness. This suggests that ranibizumab may be regarded as a cost-effective therapy for patients with macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion, relative to grid laser photocoagulation (for BRVO) and observation (for CRVO). Limitations include sparse data for utilities associated with the severity of visual impairment in the WSE in patients with RVO. A lack of direct comparative evidence between ranibizumab and the dexamethasone intravitreal implant for the treatment of BRVO and CRVO and the infeasibility of an indirect comparison due to significant heterogeneity in trial designs prevented the inclusion of this treatment as a comparator in the Markov model.
本研究在一个基于英国的模型中,比较玻璃体内注射雷珠单抗与观察和/或激光光凝治疗视网膜静脉阻塞继发黄斑水肿的成本效益。
使用从BRAVO、CRUISE和HORIZON试验数据得出的转移概率和不良事件发生率构建马尔可夫模型。将与治疗和健康状态相关的结果相结合,以预测每种治疗方案队列的总体健康成本和结果。
在视网膜分支静脉阻塞中,与激光光凝相比,雷珠单抗以8141英镑的增量成本产生了0.518个质量调整生命年的收益。增量成本效益比为每质量调整生命年15710英镑,每月免于失明的增量成本为658英镑。在视网膜中央静脉阻塞中,与仅观察相比,雷珠单抗以9216英镑的增量成本产生了0.539个质量调整生命年的收益。增量成本效益比为17103英镑,每月免于失明的增量成本为423英镑。
这些增量成本效益比低于通常被视为成本效益阈值的20000 - 30000英镑范围。这表明,相对于格栅激光光凝(用于视网膜分支静脉阻塞)和观察(用于视网膜中央静脉阻塞),雷珠单抗对于视网膜静脉阻塞继发黄斑水肿的患者可能被视为一种具有成本效益的治疗方法。局限性包括视网膜静脉阻塞患者中与视力损害严重程度相关的效用数据稀少。雷珠单抗与玻璃体内植入地塞米松治疗视网膜分支静脉阻塞和视网膜中央静脉阻塞之间缺乏直接比较证据,且由于试验设计存在显著异质性而无法进行间接比较,这使得无法将这种治疗方法纳入马尔可夫模型作为对照。