User login
Despite recent data showing that aflibercept is the most effective anti–vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) treatment available for patients with diabetic macular edema, bevacizumab is still by far the best drug option available from a cost-effectiveness perspective, according to a post hoc analysis.
Dr. Joshua D. Stein of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and his coauthors analyzed the anti-VEGF drugs prescribed to 624 diabetic macular edema (DME) patients – 209 taking aflibercept, 207 taking bevacizumab, and 208 taking ranibizumab – enrolled in the Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network Comparative Effectiveness Trial for incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).
“On the basis of 2015 wholesale acquisition costs, aflibercept (2 mg) costs $1,850, ranibizumab (0.3mg) costs $1,170, and bevacizumab repackaged at compounding pharmacies into syringes for ophthalmologic use containing 1.25 mg of bevacizumab costs approximately $60 per dose,” Dr. Stein and his coauthors wrote (JAMA Ophthalmol. 2016 June 9. doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2016.1669). “Considering that these medicines may be given 9 to 11 times in the first year of treatment and, on average, 17 times during 5 years, total costs can be substantial.”
Data from the randomized clinical trial were used to calculate projected benefit, costs, and cost-effectiveness of aflibercept and ranibizumab compared with bevacizumab as baseline. In addition, the investigators also determined both ICERs and Quality Life-Adjusted Years (QALY) for each drug over periods of 1 and 10 years. Results indicated that for 1 year of treatment, the ICER of aflibercept was $1.11 million per QALY and for ranibizumab, $1.73 million per QALY. Over the course of 10 years, aflibercept would come out to $349,000 per QALY, while ranibizumab would be $603,000 per QALY. In an analysis of a subgroup with highly reduced eyesight due to DME, the 10-year ICER of aflibercept would be $287,000 per QALY and for ranibizumab, $817,000, according to Dr. Stein and his associates.
Over a 1-year period, bevacizumab would cost $4,100, compared to $26,100 for aflibercept and $18,600 for ranibizumab. Over a 10-year period, those costs would jump up to $102,500 for aflibercept and $79,400 for ranibizumab, while bevacizumab would cost $39,800. Overall, the costs of aflibercept and ranibizumab would have to decrease by 69% and 80%, respectively, for the costs to become competitive with bevacizumab.
“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 [and] in contexts where bevacizumab is unavailable for DME treatment, aflibercept is not cost-effective relative to ranibizumab,” the authors concluded, adding that bevacizumab makes the most sense as a primary anti-VEGF treatment because it allows for the greatest overall value.
The National Eye Institute, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services funded the study. Dr. Stein did not report any relevant financial disclosures; however, other coauthors reported potentially relevant disclosures.
Despite recent data showing that aflibercept is the most effective anti–vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) treatment available for patients with diabetic macular edema, bevacizumab is still by far the best drug option available from a cost-effectiveness perspective, according to a post hoc analysis.
Dr. Joshua D. Stein of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and his coauthors analyzed the anti-VEGF drugs prescribed to 624 diabetic macular edema (DME) patients – 209 taking aflibercept, 207 taking bevacizumab, and 208 taking ranibizumab – enrolled in the Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network Comparative Effectiveness Trial for incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).
“On the basis of 2015 wholesale acquisition costs, aflibercept (2 mg) costs $1,850, ranibizumab (0.3mg) costs $1,170, and bevacizumab repackaged at compounding pharmacies into syringes for ophthalmologic use containing 1.25 mg of bevacizumab costs approximately $60 per dose,” Dr. Stein and his coauthors wrote (JAMA Ophthalmol. 2016 June 9. doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2016.1669). “Considering that these medicines may be given 9 to 11 times in the first year of treatment and, on average, 17 times during 5 years, total costs can be substantial.”
Data from the randomized clinical trial were used to calculate projected benefit, costs, and cost-effectiveness of aflibercept and ranibizumab compared with bevacizumab as baseline. In addition, the investigators also determined both ICERs and Quality Life-Adjusted Years (QALY) for each drug over periods of 1 and 10 years. Results indicated that for 1 year of treatment, the ICER of aflibercept was $1.11 million per QALY and for ranibizumab, $1.73 million per QALY. Over the course of 10 years, aflibercept would come out to $349,000 per QALY, while ranibizumab would be $603,000 per QALY. In an analysis of a subgroup with highly reduced eyesight due to DME, the 10-year ICER of aflibercept would be $287,000 per QALY and for ranibizumab, $817,000, according to Dr. Stein and his associates.
Over a 1-year period, bevacizumab would cost $4,100, compared to $26,100 for aflibercept and $18,600 for ranibizumab. Over a 10-year period, those costs would jump up to $102,500 for aflibercept and $79,400 for ranibizumab, while bevacizumab would cost $39,800. Overall, the costs of aflibercept and ranibizumab would have to decrease by 69% and 80%, respectively, for the costs to become competitive with bevacizumab.
“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 [and] in contexts where bevacizumab is unavailable for DME treatment, aflibercept is not cost-effective relative to ranibizumab,” the authors concluded, adding that bevacizumab makes the most sense as a primary anti-VEGF treatment because it allows for the greatest overall value.
The National Eye Institute, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services funded the study. Dr. Stein did not report any relevant financial disclosures; however, other coauthors reported potentially relevant disclosures.
Despite recent data showing that aflibercept is the most effective anti–vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) treatment available for patients with diabetic macular edema, bevacizumab is still by far the best drug option available from a cost-effectiveness perspective, according to a post hoc analysis.
Dr. Joshua D. Stein of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and his coauthors analyzed the anti-VEGF drugs prescribed to 624 diabetic macular edema (DME) patients – 209 taking aflibercept, 207 taking bevacizumab, and 208 taking ranibizumab – enrolled in the Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network Comparative Effectiveness Trial for incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).
“On the basis of 2015 wholesale acquisition costs, aflibercept (2 mg) costs $1,850, ranibizumab (0.3mg) costs $1,170, and bevacizumab repackaged at compounding pharmacies into syringes for ophthalmologic use containing 1.25 mg of bevacizumab costs approximately $60 per dose,” Dr. Stein and his coauthors wrote (JAMA Ophthalmol. 2016 June 9. doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2016.1669). “Considering that these medicines may be given 9 to 11 times in the first year of treatment and, on average, 17 times during 5 years, total costs can be substantial.”
Data from the randomized clinical trial were used to calculate projected benefit, costs, and cost-effectiveness of aflibercept and ranibizumab compared with bevacizumab as baseline. In addition, the investigators also determined both ICERs and Quality Life-Adjusted Years (QALY) for each drug over periods of 1 and 10 years. Results indicated that for 1 year of treatment, the ICER of aflibercept was $1.11 million per QALY and for ranibizumab, $1.73 million per QALY. Over the course of 10 years, aflibercept would come out to $349,000 per QALY, while ranibizumab would be $603,000 per QALY. In an analysis of a subgroup with highly reduced eyesight due to DME, the 10-year ICER of aflibercept would be $287,000 per QALY and for ranibizumab, $817,000, according to Dr. Stein and his associates.
Over a 1-year period, bevacizumab would cost $4,100, compared to $26,100 for aflibercept and $18,600 for ranibizumab. Over a 10-year period, those costs would jump up to $102,500 for aflibercept and $79,400 for ranibizumab, while bevacizumab would cost $39,800. Overall, the costs of aflibercept and ranibizumab would have to decrease by 69% and 80%, respectively, for the costs to become competitive with bevacizumab.
“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 [and] in contexts where bevacizumab is unavailable for DME treatment, aflibercept is not cost-effective relative to ranibizumab,” the authors concluded, adding that bevacizumab makes the most sense as a primary anti-VEGF treatment because it allows for the greatest overall value.
The National Eye Institute, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services funded the study. Dr. Stein did not report any relevant financial disclosures; however, other coauthors reported potentially relevant disclosures.
FROM JAMA OPHTHALMOLOGY
Key clinical point: Bevacizumab remains the best option, in terms of price and value, over aflibercept and ranibizumab for treatment of diabetic macular edema.
Major finding: Based on incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) over 1- and 10-year periods, the costs of aflibercept and ranibizumab would have to decrease by 69% and 80%, respectively, to match the cost of bevacizumab over the same time periods.
Data source: Post hoc analysis of patients enrolled in the Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network Comparative Effectiveness Trial at 1-year follow-up.
Disclosures: The National Eye Institute, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services funded the study. Dr. Stein did not report any relevant financial disclosures.
