IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharmo/v8y2024i3d10.1007_s41669-023-00465-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-Effectiveness of Faricimab in the Treatment of Diabetic Macular Oedema (DMO): A UK Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Christian Bührer

    (F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd)

  • Thomas Paling

    (Roche Products Ltd)

  • Richard Gale

    (York and Scarborough Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
    University of York)

  • Tatiana Paulo

    (F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd)

  • Marloes Bagijn

    (F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd)

Abstract

Aim The aim of this work was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of faricimab against relevant therapeutic alternatives used in clinical practice for the treatment of diabetic macular oedema (DMO) in the UK. Methods A state-transition (Markov) model, with health states based on visual acuity scores and treatment pathways, was developed to conduct cost-utility analysis of faricimab treat and extend (T&E) regimen versus ranibizumab pro re nata (PRN) and aflibercept PRN over a time horizon of 25 years. Comparison against bevacizumab PRN was considered in scenario analysis. Effectiveness data for faricimab was sourced from the pivotal YOSEMITE and RHINE double-blind randomised controlled trials, and from a network meta-analysis for comparators. Costs and (dis)utilities were taken from nationally published sources or literature. The base case included indirect costs (productivity gains, informal care) given the wider impacts of DMO on society. Sensitivity analyses were conducted. Results In the base case, faricimab T&E dominated ranibizumab PRN and aflibercept PRN, being more effective and resulting in cost savings (between 0.16 and 0.36 mean QALYs gained, and £5483–9655 mean cost savings). In scenario analysis, faricimab was more effective but costlier compared with bevacizumab, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £8898 per QALY gained. Considering only healthcare payer costs, the ICER of faricimab compared with ranibizumab PRN was £7991 per QALY gained and faricimab dominated aflibercept PRN. Conclusions Faricimab T&E has the potential to reduce the burden of vision loss on society, giving people living with DMO greater independence and contributing to increased healthcare system capacity. At a threshold of £20,000, faricimab T&E is cost-effective compared with relevant comparators, and potentially cost saving.

Suggested Citation

  • Christian Bührer & Thomas Paling & Richard Gale & Tatiana Paulo & Marloes Bagijn, 2024. "Cost-Effectiveness of Faricimab in the Treatment of Diabetic Macular Oedema (DMO): A UK Analysis," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 8(3), pages 445-457, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:8:y:2024:i:3:d:10.1007_s41669-023-00465-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s41669-023-00465-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41669-023-00465-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s41669-023-00465-4?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. Alan Brennan & Stephen E. Chick & Ruth Davies, 2006. "A taxonomy of model structures for economic evaluation of health technologies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(12), pages 1295-1310, December.
    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. Bernhard Ultsch & Oliver Damm & Philippe Beutels & Joke Bilcke & Bernd Brüggenjürgen & Andreas Gerber-Grote & Wolfgang Greiner & Germaine Hanquet & Raymond Hutubessy & Mark Jit & Mirjam Knol & Rüdiger, 2016. "Methods for Health Economic Evaluation of Vaccines and Immunization Decision Frameworks: A Consensus Framework from a European Vaccine Economics Community," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 227-244, March.
    2. Becky Pennington & Alex Filby & Lesley Owen & Matthew Taylor, 2018. "Smoking Cessation: A Comparison of Two Model Structures," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(9), pages 1101-1112, September.
    3. Peter J. Dodd & Jeff J. Pennington & Liza Bronner Murrison & David W. Dowdy, 2018. "Simple Inclusion of Complex Diagnostic Algorithms in Infectious Disease Models for Economic Evaluation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(8), pages 930-941, November.
    4. Jonathan Karnon & James Stahl & Alan Brennan & J. Jaime Caro & Javier Mar & Jörgen Möller, 2012. "Modeling Using Discrete Event Simulation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 32(5), pages 701-711, September.
    5. Stuart J. Wright & William G. Newman & Katherine Payne, 2019. "Accounting for Capacity Constraints in Economic Evaluations of Precision Medicine: A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(8), pages 1011-1027, August.
    6. Arielle Anderer & Hamsa Bastani & John Silberholz, 2022. "Adaptive Clinical Trial Designs with Surrogates: When Should We Bother?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(3), pages 1982-2002, March.
    7. Eren Demir & David Southern, 2017. "Enabling better management of patients: discrete event simulation combined with the STAR approach," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 68(5), pages 577-590, May.
    8. Jen Kruger & Daniel Pollard & Hasan Basarir & Praveen Thokala & Debbie Cooke & Marie Clark & Rod Bond & Simon Heller & Alan Brennan, 2015. "Incorporating Psychological Predictors of Treatment Response into Health Economic Simulation Models," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(7), pages 872-887, October.
    9. Sarah Bates & Thomas Bayley & Paul Norman & Penny Breeze & Alan Brennan, 2020. "A Systematic Review of Methods to Predict Weight Trajectories in Health Economic Models of Behavioral Weight-Management Programs: The Potential Role of Psychosocial Factors," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(1), pages 90-105, January.
    10. F. Tomini & F. Prinzen & A. D. I. Asselt, 2016. "A review of economic evaluation models for cardiac resynchronization therapy with implantable cardioverter defibrillators in patients with heart failure," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 17(9), pages 1159-1172, December.
    11. Jen-Yu Amy Chang & James B. Chilcott & Nicholas R. Latimer, 2024. "Challenges and Opportunities in Interdisciplinary Research and Real-World Data for Treatment Sequences in Health Technology Assessments," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 42(5), pages 487-506, May.
    12. Luis Hernandez & Asli Ozen & Rodrigo DosSantos & Denis Getsios, 2016. "Systematic Review of Model-Based Economic Evaluations of Treatments for Alzheimer’s Disease," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(7), pages 681-707, July.
    13. Sarang Deo & Sameer Mehta & Charles J. Corbett, 2022. "Optimal Scale‐Up of HIV Treatment Programs in Resource‐Limited Settings Under Supply Uncertainty," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 31(3), pages 883-905, March.
    14. Matthew J. Glover & Edmund Jones & Katya L. Masconi & Michael J. Sweeting & Simon G. Thompson, 2018. "Discrete Event Simulation for Decision Modeling in Health Care: Lessons from Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Screening," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(4), pages 439-451, May.
    15. Caroline Canavan & Joe West & Timothy Card, 2016. "Calculating Total Health Service Utilisation and Costs from Routinely Collected Electronic Health Records Using the Example of Patients with Irritable Bowel Syndrome Before and After Their First Gastr," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 181-194, February.
    16. Paul Crosland & Deborah A. Marshall & Seyed Hossein Hosseini & Nicholas Ho & Catherine Vacher & Adam Skinner & Kim-Huong Nguyen & Frank Iorfino & Sebastian Rosenberg & Yun Ju Christine Song & Apostolo, 2024. "Incorporating Complexity and System Dynamics into Economic Modelling for Mental Health Policy and Planning," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 42(12), pages 1301-1315, December.
    17. David Barrera Ferro & Steffen Bayer & Laura Bocanegra & Sally Brailsford & Adriana Díaz & Elena Valentina Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez & Honora Smith, 2022. "Understanding no-show behaviour for cervical cancer screening appointments among hard-to-reach women in Bogotá, Colombia: A mixed-methods approach," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(7), pages 1-20, July.
    18. Caroline Canavan & Joe West & Timothy Card, 2016. "Calculating Total Health Service Utilisation and Costs from Routinely Collected Electronic Health Records Using the Example of Patients with Irritable Bowel Syndrome Before and After Their First Gastr," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 181-194, February.
    19. L. B. Standfield & T. A. Comans & P. A. Scuffham, 2017. "An empirical comparison of Markov cohort modeling and discrete event simulation in a capacity-constrained health care setting," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 18(1), pages 33-47, January.
    20. Emma McManus & Tracey Sach & Nick Levell, 2018. "The Use of Decision–Analytic Models in Atopic Eczema: A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 51-66, January.

    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:spr:pharmo:v:8:y:2024:i:3:d:10.1007_s41669-023-00465-4. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.