A Caveat About Financial Incentives for Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Therapy for Diabetic Retinopathy.

PURPOSE

To highlight the financial incentive to the physician of choosing an intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-based strategy for treating non-proliferative and proliferative diabetic retinopathy, and its possible risks to the patient and costs to the health care system.

DESIGN

Perspective with retrospective cost and profit analysis.

METHODS

Review and synthesis of selected literature on the treatment of diabetic retinopathy, with interpretation of activity-based and time-based costing of an intravitreal aflibercept strategy for diabetic retinopathy. Data from the DRCR Retina Network Protocols W and AB and PANORAMA trial were used to illustrate the potential financial incentive underlying such a treatment strategy.

RESULTS

Physician treatment algorithms for diabetic vitreous hemorrhage and non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy may be influenced by the substantial financial incentives that intravitreal aflibercept strategies present, despite functional equivalence with alternative and less profitable strategies. For example, pursuing an intravitreal aflibercept-based strategy for diabetic vitreous hemorrhage presents a 76% increased profit over pars plana vitrectomy with laser, with equivalent functional outcomes. For non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy, preventative aflibercept injections represent a potential 414% increase in profit over observation and an increased cost of $12,164 to $17,542 over 2 years per patient, with no improvement in visual function. These findings demonstrate that there may be misaligned financial incentives in the management of diabetic retinopathy.

CONCLUSIONS

While anti-VEGF therapy is a useful tool in the management of proliferative diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular edema, it is believed that physicians should avoid overreliance on anti-VEGF injections in the treatment of diabetic retinopathy. Retinal specialists should be cognizant of the limitations, costs, and risks of anti-VEGF monotherapy and prophylactic therapy, and of the imperative to avoid bias towards financially remunerative practice patterns when equally effective alternatives exist.