Suppr超能文献

阿柏西普、贝伐单抗和雷珠单抗治疗糖尿病性黄斑水肿的成本效益:来自糖尿病视网膜病变临床研究网络比较疗效试验的分析

Cost-effectiveness of Aflibercept, Bevacizumab, and Ranibizumab for Diabetic Macular Edema Treatment: Analysis From the Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network Comparative Effectiveness Trial.

作者信息

Ross Eric L, Hutton David W, Stein Joshua D, Bressler Neil M, Jampol Lee M, Glassman Adam R

机构信息

Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor2Department of Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor.

Department of Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor3Department of Industrial and Operations Engineering, University of Michigan College of Engineering, Ann Arbor4Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovat.

出版信息

JAMA Ophthalmol. 2016 Aug 1;134(8):888-96. doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2016.1669.

Abstract

IMPORTANCE

Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) medicines have revolutionized diabetic macular edema (DME) treatment. A recent randomized clinical trial comparing anti-VEGF agents for patients with decreased vision from DME found that at 1 year aflibercept (2.0 mg) achieved better visual outcomes than repackaged (compounded) bevacizumab (1.25 mg) or ranibizumab (0.3 mg); the worse the starting vision, the greater the treatment benefit with aflibercept. However, aflibercept and ranibizumab, respectively, are approximately 31 and 20 times more expensive than bevacizumab.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of aflibercept, bevacizumab, and ranibizumab for the treatment of DME.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Post hoc analysis of efficacy, safety, and resource utilization data at 1-year follow-up from the Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network Comparative Effectiveness Trial. Patients were enrolled from August 22, 2012, through August 28, 2013, and analysis was performed from August 21, 2014, through November 7, 2015.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The ICERs for all trial participants and subgroups with baseline vision of approximate Snellen equivalent 20/32 to 20/40 (better vision) and baseline vision of approximate Snellen equivalent 20/50 or worse (worse vision). One-year trial data were used to calculate cost-effectiveness for 1 year for the 3 anti-VEGF agents; mathematical modeling was then used to project 10-year cost-effectiveness results.

RESULTS

The study included 624 participants (mean [SD] age, 60.6 [10.5] years; 45.7% female; 65.5% white), 209 in the aflibercept group, 207 in the bevacizumab group, and 208 in the ranibizumab group. For all participants, during 1 year, the ICERs of aflibercept and ranibizumab compared with bevacizumab were $1 110 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and $1 730 000 per QALY, respectively. During 10 years, they were $349 000 per QALY and $603 000 per QALY, respectively. Compared with ranibizumab, aflibercept's ICER was $648 000 per QALY at 1 year and $203 000 per QALY at 10 years. For the subgroup with worse baseline vision, the 10-year ICERs of aflibercept and ranibizumab compared with bevacizumab were $287 000 per QALY and $817 000 per QALY, respectively. In eyes with decreased vision from DME, treatment costs of aflibercept and ranibizumab would need to decrease by 69% and 80%, respectively, to reach a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100 000 per QALY compared with bevacizumab during a 10-year horizon; for the subgroup with worse baseline vision, the costs would need to decrease by 62% and 84%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Aflibercept (2.0 mg) and ranibizumab (0.3 mg) are not cost-effective relative to bevacizumab for treatment of DME unless their prices decrease substantially. These results highlight the challenges that physicians, patients, and policymakers face when safety and efficacy results are at odds with cost-effectiveness results.

摘要

重要性

抗血管内皮生长因子(VEGF)药物彻底改变了糖尿病性黄斑水肿(DME)的治疗方式。最近一项针对视力下降的DME患者比较抗VEGF药物的随机临床试验发现,在1年时,阿柏西普(2.0毫克)比重新包装(配制)的贝伐单抗(1.25毫克)或雷珠单抗(0.3毫克)取得了更好的视力结果;起始视力越差,阿柏西普的治疗获益越大。然而,阿柏西普和雷珠单抗的价格分别比贝伐单抗贵约31倍和20倍。

目的

研究阿柏西普、贝伐单抗和雷珠单抗治疗DME的增量成本效益比(ICER)。

设计、设置和参与者:对糖尿病视网膜病变临床研究网络比较有效性试验1年随访时的疗效、安全性和资源利用数据进行事后分析。患者于2012年8月22日至2013年8月28日入组,分析于2014年8月21日至2015年11月7日进行。

主要结局和指标

所有试验参与者以及基线视力约为Snellen视力表等效值20/32至20/40(较好视力)和基线视力约为Snellen视力表等效值20/50或更差(较差视力)的亚组的ICER。使用1年试验数据计算3种抗VEGF药物1年的成本效益;然后使用数学模型预测10年的成本效益结果。

结果

该研究纳入了624名参与者(平均[标准差]年龄为60.6[10.5]岁;45.7%为女性;65.5%为白人),阿柏西普组209名,贝伐单抗组207名,雷珠单抗组208名。对于所有参与者,在1年期间,与贝伐单抗相比,阿柏西普和雷珠单抗的ICER分别为每质量调整生命年(QALY)1110000美元和每QALY 1730000美元。在10年期间,它们分别为每QALY 349000美元和每QALY 603000美元。与雷珠单抗相比,阿柏西普的ICER在1年时为每QALY 648000美元,在10年时为每QALY 203000美元。对于基线视力较差的亚组,与贝伐单抗相比,阿柏西普和雷珠单抗的10年ICER分别为每QALY 287000美元和每QALY 817000美元。在因DME导致视力下降的眼中,与贝伐单抗相比,在10年期间,阿柏西普和雷珠单抗的治疗成本分别需要降低69%和80%,才能达到每QALY 100000美元的成本效益阈值;对于基线视力较差的亚组,成本分别需要降低62%和84%。

结论和意义

阿柏西普(2.0毫克)和雷珠单抗(0.3毫克)相对于贝伐单抗治疗DME不具有成本效益,除非其价格大幅下降。这些结果凸显了医生、患者和政策制定者在安全性和疗效结果与成本效益结果不一致时所面临的挑战。

相似文献

6
Aflibercept for Diabetic Macular Edema in Eyes Previously Treated With Ranibizumab and/or Bevacizumab May Further Improve Macular Thickness.
Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2016 Sep 1;47(9):836-9. doi: 10.3928/23258160-20160901-06.

引用本文的文献

1
4
Real-World Evidence for Faricimab in Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration and Diabetic Macular Edema: A Scoping Review.
Ophthalmol Sci. 2025 Feb 21;5(4):100744. doi: 10.1016/j.xops.2025.100744. eCollection 2025 Jul-Aug.
6
Intravitreal therapy-success stories and challenges.
Wien Med Wochenschr. 2025 May;175(7-8):162-174. doi: 10.1007/s10354-024-01070-8. Epub 2025 Mar 3.
7
Narrative review of comprehensive management strategies for diabetic retinopathy: interdisciplinary approaches and future perspectives.
BMJ Public Health. 2025 Jan 16;3(1):e001353. doi: 10.1136/bmjph-2024-001353. eCollection 2025 Jan.
8
Durability and Efficacy of Faricimab in Treatment-Resistant Retinal Edema Utilizing "Real-World" Dosing Regimens.
J Ophthalmol. 2024 Nov 4;2024:8583348. doi: 10.1155/2024/8583348. eCollection 2024.
9
Patient-Centered Economic Burden of Diabetic Macular Edema: Retrospective Cohort Study.
JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2024 Oct 8;10:e56741. doi: 10.2196/56741.
10
Efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of biosimilars of bevacizumab in näive patients with diabetic macular edema.
Indian J Pharmacol. 2024 Jul 1;56(4):248-252. doi: 10.4103/ijp.ijp_58_24. Epub 2024 Sep 10.

本文引用的文献

1
Intravitreal Aflibercept for Diabetic Macular Edema: 100-Week Results From the VISTA and VIVID Studies.
Ophthalmology. 2015 Oct;122(10):2044-52. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.06.017. Epub 2015 Jul 18.
2
Medical costs associated with cardiovascular events among high-risk patients with hyperlipidemia.
Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2015 Jun 9;7:337-45. doi: 10.2147/CEOR.S76972. eCollection 2015.
3
Aflibercept, bevacizumab, or ranibizumab for diabetic macular edema.
N Engl J Med. 2015 Mar 26;372(13):1193-203. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1414264. Epub 2015 Feb 18.
4
Intravitreal Ranibizumab for diabetic macular edema with prompt versus deferred laser treatment: 5-year randomized trial results.
Ophthalmology. 2015 Feb;122(2):375-81. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.08.047. Epub 2014 Oct 28.
5
Updating cost-effectiveness--the curious resilience of the $50,000-per-QALY threshold.
N Engl J Med. 2014 Aug 28;371(9):796-7. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1405158.
7
Switching to less expensive blindness drug could save medicare part B $18 billion over a ten-year period.
Health Aff (Millwood). 2014 Jun;33(6):931-9. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2013.0832.
9
Cost-effectiveness of treatment of diabetic macular edema.
Ann Intern Med. 2014 Jan 7;160(1):18-29. doi: 10.7326/M13-0768.
10
Cost-effectiveness of various interventions for newly diagnosed diabetic macular edema.
Ophthalmology. 2013 Sep;120(9):1835-42. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.02.002. Epub 2013 May 1.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验