IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0197670.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab, ranibizumab and aflibercept for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration—A cost-effectiveness analysis from a societal perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Freekje van Asten
  • Charlotte T J Michels
  • Carel B Hoyng
  • Gert Jan van der Wilt
  • B Jeroen Klevering
  • Maroeska M Rovers
  • Janneke P C Grutters

Abstract

Background: The discussion on the use of bevacizumab is still ongoing and often doctors are deterred from using bevacizumab due to legal or political issues. Bevacizumab is an effective, safe and inexpensive treatment option for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD), albeit unregistered for the disease. Therefore, in some countries ophthalmologists use the equally effective but expensive drugs ranibizumab and aflibercept. We describe the economic consequences of this dilemma surrounding AMD treatment from a societal perspective. Methods: We modelled cost-effectiveness of treatment with ranibizumab (as-needed), aflibercept (bimonthly) and bevacizumab (as-needed). Effectiveness was estimated by systematic review and meta-analysis. The drug with the most favourable cost-effectiveness profile compared to bevacizumab was used for threshold analyses. First, we determined how much we overspend per injection. Second, we calculated the required effectiveness to justify the current price and the reasonable price for a drug leading to optimal vision. Finally, we estimated how much Europe overspends if bevacizumab is not first choice. Results: Bevacizumab treatment costs €27,087 per year, about €4,000 less than aflibercept and €6,000 less than ranibizumab. With similar effectiveness for all drugs as shown by meta-analysis, bevacizumab was the most cost-effective. Aflibercept was chosen for threshold analyses. Aflibercept costs €943 per injection, but we determined that the maximum price to be cost-effective is €533. Alternatively, at its current price, aflibercept should yield about twice the visual gain. Even when optimal vision can be achieved, the maximum price for any treatment is €37,453 per year. Most importantly, Europe overspends €335 million yearly on AMD treatment when choosing aflibercept over bevacizumab. Conclusion: Bevacizumab is the most cost-effective treatment for AMD, yet is not the standard of care across Europe. The registered drugs ranibizumab and aflibercept lead to large overspending without additional health benefits. Health authorities should consider taking steps to implement bevacizumab into clinical practice as first choice.

Suggested Citation

  • Freekje van Asten & Charlotte T J Michels & Carel B Hoyng & Gert Jan van der Wilt & B Jeroen Klevering & Maroeska M Rovers & Janneke P C Grutters, 2018. "The cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab, ranibizumab and aflibercept for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration—A cost-effectiveness analysis from a societal perspective," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(5), pages 1-14, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0197670
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0197670
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0197670
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0197670&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0197670?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Don Husereau & Michael Drummond & Stavros Petrou & Chris Carswell & David Moher & Dan Greenberg & Federico Augustovski & Andrew Briggs & Josephine Mauskopf & Elizabeth Loder, 2013. "Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) Statement," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(5), pages 361-367, May.
    2. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Torrance, George W. & O'Brien, Bernie J. & Stoddart, Greg L., 2005. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 3, number 9780198529453.
    3. Karl Claxton & Mark Sculpher & Stephen Palmer & Anthony J Culyer, 2015. "Causes For Concern: Is Nice Failing To Uphold Its Responsibilities To All Nhs Patients?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(1), pages 1-7, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Interventions for Screening of Dementia," Working Papers 2018:20, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    2. Najmiatul Fitria & Antoinette D. I. Asselt & Maarten J. Postma, 2019. "Cost-effectiveness of controlling gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 407-417, April.
    3. Thomas Grochtdreis & Hans-Helmut König & Alexander Dobruschkin & Gunhild von Amsberg & Judith Dams, 2018. "Cost-effectiveness analyses and cost analyses in castration-resistant prostate cancer: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-25, December.
    4. Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Nonpharmacological Interventions for Dementia Patients and their Caregivers - A Systematic Literature Review," Working Papers 2018:10, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    5. Jesse Elliott & Sasha Katwyk & Bláthnaid McCoy & Tammy Clifford & Beth K. Potter & Becky Skidmore & George A. Wells & Doug Coyle, 2019. "Decision Models for Assessing the Cost Effectiveness of Treatments for Pediatric Drug-Resistant Epilepsy: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(10), pages 1261-1276, October.
    6. Wei Zhang & Aslam Anis, 2014. "Health-Related Productivity Loss: NICE to Recognize Soon, Good to Discuss Now," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(5), pages 425-427, May.
    7. Don Husereau & Michael Drummond & Stavros Petrou & Dan Greenberg & Josephine Mauskopf & Federico Augustovski & Andrew Briggs & David Moher & Elizabeth Loder & Chris Carswell, 2015. "Reply to Roberts et al.: CHEERS is Sufficient for Reporting Cost-Benefit Analysis, but May Require Further Elaboration," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(5), pages 535-536, May.
    8. Neily Zakiyah & Antoinette D I van Asselt & Frank Roijmans & Maarten J Postma, 2016. "Economic Evaluation of Family Planning Interventions in Low and Middle Income Countries; A Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-19, December.
    9. Kathryn Schnippel & Naomi Lince-Deroche & Theo van den Handel & Seithati Molefi & Suann Bruce & Cynthia Firnhaber, 2015. "Cost Evaluation of Reproductive and Primary Health Care Mobile Service Delivery for Women in Two Rural Districts in South Africa," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-13, March.
    10. Andrea Iannaccone & Thomas Marwick, 2015. "Cost Effectiveness of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Compared with Medical Management or Surgery for Patients with Aortic Stenosis," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 29-45, February.
    11. Rachel Elliott & Koen Putman & James Davies & Lieven Annemans, 2014. "A Review of the Methodological Challenges in Assessing the Cost Effectiveness of Pharmacist Interventions," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(12), pages 1185-1199, December.
    12. Paul Tappenden & James Chilcott, 2014. "Avoiding and Identifying Errors and Other Threats to the Credibility of Health Economic Models," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(10), pages 967-979, October.
    13. S. Rajsic & H. Gothe & H. H. Borba & G. Sroczynski & J. Vujicic & T. Toell & Uwe Siebert, 2019. "Economic burden of stroke: a systematic review on post-stroke care," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(1), pages 107-134, February.
    14. Maximilian Hatz & Reiner Leidl & Nichola Yates & Björn Stollenwerk, 2014. "A Systematic Review of the Quality of Economic Models Comparing Thrombosis Inhibitors in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 377-393, April.
    15. Stuart Wright & Cheryl Jones & Katherine Payne & Nimarta Dharni & Fiona Ulph, 2015. "The Role of Information Provision in Economic Evaluations of Newborn Bloodspot Screening: A Systematic Review," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 13(6), pages 615-626, December.
    16. Georgina Jones & Victoria Brennan & Richard Jacques & Hilary Wood & Simon Dixon & Stephen Radley, 2018. "Evaluating the impact of a ‘virtual clinic’ on patient experience, personal and provider costs of care in urinary incontinence: A randomised controlled trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(1), pages 1-16, January.
    17. Susanne Mayer & Noemi Kiss & Agata Łaszewska & Judit Simon, 2017. "Costing evidence for health care decision-making in Austria: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-18, August.
    18. Naomi Lince-Deroche & Jane Phiri & Pam Michelow & Jennifer S Smith & Cindy Firnhaber, 2015. "Costs and Cost Effectiveness of Three Approaches for Cervical Cancer Screening among HIV-Positive Women in Johannesburg, South Africa," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(11), pages 1-16, November.
    19. Alessandro G. Campolina & Luciana M. Rozman & Tassia C. Decimoni & Roseli Leandro & Hillegonda M. D. Novaes & Patrícia Coelho De Soárez, 2017. "Many Miles to Go: A Systematic Review of the State of Cost-Utility Analyses in Brazil," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 163-172, April.
    20. Nikita M. John & Stuart J. Wright & Sean P. Gavan & Caroline M. Vass, 2019. "The role of information provision in economic evaluations of non-invasive prenatal testing: a systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(8), pages 1123-1131, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0197670. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.