September 2016
Volume 57, Issue 12
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   September 2016
No excuses. Bevacizumab should be first choice in AMD.
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Freekje Van Asten
    Ophthalmology, Radboud umc, Nijmegen, Netherlands
  • Charlotte Michels
    Health Evidence, Radboud umc, Nijmegen, Netherlands
  • Carel C B Hoyng
    Ophthalmology, Radboud umc, Nijmegen, Netherlands
  • Gert Jan van der Wilt
    Health Evidence, Radboud umc, Nijmegen, Netherlands
  • B. Jeroen Klevering
    Ophthalmology, Radboud umc, Nijmegen, Netherlands
  • Maroeska M. Rovers
    Health Evidence, Radboud umc, Nijmegen, Netherlands
  • Janneke P.C. Grutters
    Health Evidence, Radboud umc, Nijmegen, Netherlands
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Freekje Van Asten, None; Charlotte Michels, None; Carel Hoyng, None; Gert Jan van der Wilt, None; B. Jeroen Klevering, None; Maroeska Rovers, None; Janneke Grutters, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science September 2016, Vol.57, 3331. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to Subscribers Only
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Freekje Van Asten, Charlotte Michels, Carel C B Hoyng, Gert Jan van der Wilt, B. Jeroen Klevering, Maroeska M. Rovers, Janneke P.C. Grutters; No excuses. Bevacizumab should be first choice in AMD.. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2016;57(12):3331.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : Bevacizumab is an effective, safe and cheap treatment option for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD). However, bevacizumab is not registered for AMD. Therefore, in some countries ophthalmologists either voluntarily choose or are forced to use the equally effective but expensive drugs ranibizumab and aflibercept. Here we describe the economic consequences of this dilemma surrounding AMD treatment.

Methods : We modelled cost-effectiveness of treatment with ranibizumab (as-needed), aflibercept (bimonthly) and bevacizumab (as-needed). The drug with the most favourable cost-effectiveness profile compared to bevacizumab was used for threshold analyses. First, we determined how much we overpay per injection. Second, we calculated the required effectiveness to justify the current price and what a reasonable price is for a drug that leads to optimal vision. Finally, we estimated how much we overspend on health care when bevacizumab is not first choice.

Results : Bevacizumab treatment costs €27,087 ($28,799) per year, approximately €4,000 ($4,250) cheaper than aflibercept and €6,000 ($6,400) cheaper than ranibizumab. With similar effectiveness for all drugs, bevacizumab was clearly the most cost-effective. Aflibercept was chosen for threshold analyses. Aflibercept costs €943 ($1,003) per injection, but we determined that the acceptable price is actually €533 ($567). 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 ($39,820) per year. Most importantly, Europe wastes €820 million and the US wastes $570 million on AMD treatment when choosing aflibercept over bevacizumab.

Conclusions : Bevacizumab is undoubtedly the most cost-effective treatment for AMD, yet it is not the standard of care across Europe and the US. The registered drugs ranibizumab and aflibercept cause huge overspending without additional health benefits. Health authorities should take steps to implement bevacizumab into clinical practice as first choice.

This is an abstract that was submitted for the 2016 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Seattle, Wash., May 1-5, 2016.

×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×