OBJECTIVE: To perform a value-based medicine analysis of clinical trials that evaluate the interventions of laser photocoagulation, intravitreal pegaptanib therapy, and photodynamic therapy (PDT) with verteporfin for the treatment of classic subfoveal choroidal neovascularization. DESIGN: Reference case cost-utility analysis using value-based medicine principles, which use patient-based utility values and standardized, input variable criteria. PARTICIPANTS: Data from participants in the Macular Photocoagulation Study, Pegaptanib for Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration Study, and the Treatment of Age-Related Macular Degeneration with Photodynamic Therapy Study. METHODS: Visual data were converted to a value-based format using time tradeoff utility analysis values from patients with macular degeneration. Costs were obtained from 2005 Medicare data. Outcomes (quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) and costs were discounted at a 3% annual rate. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Interventional QALYs gained, percent improvement in quality of life, and dollars spent per QALY gained. RESULTS: Laser photocoagulation confers a 4.4% (P = 0.03 versus pegaptanib therapy) improvement in quality of life for the reference case, whereas pegaptanib therapy confers a 5.9% improvement and PDT confers an 8.1% (P = 0.0002 versus pegaptanib therapy) improvement. The cost-utility associated with laser photocoagulation is $8179, that for pegaptanib therapy is $66978, and that for PDT is $31544. All sensitivity analyses remain within the conventional standards of cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Photodynamic therapy confers greater patient value than intravitreal pegaptanib therapy and laser photocoagulation for the treatment of classic subfoveal choroidal neovascularization. Despite the fact that laser photocoagulation is the most cost-effective intervention, both PDT and pegaptanib therapy deliver greater value, and thus are both preferred over laser photocoagulation. Using an economic measure, photodynamic therapy is the preferred treatment among these 3 interventions.
OBJECTIVE: To perform a value-based medicine analysis of clinical trials that evaluate the interventions of laser photocoagulation, intravitreal pegaptanib therapy, and photodynamic therapy (PDT) with verteporfin for the treatment of classic subfoveal choroidal neovascularization. DESIGN: Reference case cost-utility analysis using value-based medicine principles, which use patient-based utility values and standardized, input variable criteria. PARTICIPANTS: Data from participants in the Macular Photocoagulation Study, Pegaptanib for Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration Study, and the Treatment of Age-Related Macular Degeneration with Photodynamic Therapy Study. METHODS: Visual data were converted to a value-based format using time tradeoff utility analysis values from patients with macular degeneration. Costs were obtained from 2005 Medicare data. Outcomes (quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) and costs were discounted at a 3% annual rate. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Interventional QALYs gained, percent improvement in quality of life, and dollars spent per QALY gained. RESULTS: Laser photocoagulation confers a 4.4% (P = 0.03 versus pegaptanib therapy) improvement in quality of life for the reference case, whereas pegaptanib therapy confers a 5.9% improvement and PDT confers an 8.1% (P = 0.0002 versus pegaptanib therapy) improvement. The cost-utility associated with laser photocoagulation is $8179, that for pegaptanib therapy is $66978, and that for PDT is $31544. All sensitivity analyses remain within the conventional standards of cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Photodynamic therapy confers greater patient value than intravitreal pegaptanib therapy and laser photocoagulation for the treatment of classic subfoveal choroidal neovascularization. Despite the fact that laser photocoagulation is the most cost-effective intervention, both PDT and pegaptanib therapy deliver greater value, and thus are both preferred over laser photocoagulation. Using an economic measure, photodynamic therapy is the preferred treatment among these 3 interventions.
Authors: Joshua D Stein; Paula Anne Newman-Casey; Tavag Mrinalini; Paul P Lee; David W Hutton Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2014-01-07 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Francesco Parmeggiani; Donato Gemmati; Ciro Costagliola; Francesco Semeraro; Paolo Perri; Sergio D'Angelo; Mario R Romano; Katia De Nadai; Adolfo Sebastiani; Carlo Incorvaia Journal: Mol Diagn Ther Date: 2011-08-01 Impact factor: 4.074