Search

Background: Following the principles of value-based health care, outcomes and processes of daily-practice eye care need to be systematically evaluated. We illustrate an approach that can be used to support data-driven quality improvements. We used patient data regarding the treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD)., Methods: In a cohort study, we reviewed medical records of patients with nAMD confirmed on fluorescein angiography (FA). Patients were treated with intravitreal injections with bevacizumab; ranibizumab; or photodynamic therapy (PDT). Visual acuity (VA), ophthalmic exam results and treatments were recorded. VA was compared between treatments by linear mixed model. Diagnosis was re-evaluated on the original FAs. Outcome analysis was performed by 1) selecting VA as the relevant outcome parameter; 2) Preventing selection by comparing treatments with historical untreated cohort and cohorts from the literature, 3) correcting for confounding due to lesion type, and 4) identifying relevant process variables that affect the outcome. These were severity of disease at presentation, and doctor- and patient dependent process variables., Results: In total, 473 eyes were included. At 12 months, change in VA was 0.54, 0.48, 0.09, and 0.07 LogMAR in the no-treatment, photodynamic therapy (PDT), bevacizumab, and ranibizumab groups, respectively. Lesion type on FA differed between groups. Diagnosis of nAMD could not be confirmed in 104 patients. Patient delay, inaccurate diagnosis and treatment intervals may have impacted outcomes., Conclusions: The effect of PDT was small to absent. Anti-VEGFs were effective and appeared as effective as in RCTs. Correct selection of a comparator cohort and addressing confounding, including confounding by indication and effect modification, are needed to achieve valid results and interpretation. Patient delay, diagnosis accuracy, indication for and application of treatment can potentially be improved to improve treatment outcomes. In a value-based care perspective, systematic evaluation of diagnostic accuracy, treatment indication, protocols, and outcomes of new interventions is needed at an early stage to improve outcomes.

Purpose: Ophthalmologists increasingly depend on new drugs to advance their treatment options. These options are limited by restraints on reimbursements for new and expensive drugs. These restraints are put in place through health policy decisions based on cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA). Cost-effectiveness analyses need to be valid and of good quality to support correct decisions to create new treatment opportunities. In this study, we report the quality, validity and usefulness of CEAs for therapies for nAMD., Methods: A systematic review in PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane was performed to include CEAs. Quality and validity assessment was based on current general quality criteria and on elements that are specific to the field of ophthalmology., Results: Forty-eight CEAs were included in the review. Forty-four CEAs did not meet four basic model quality and validity criteria specific to CEAs in the field of ophthalmology (both eyes analysed instead of one; a time horizon extending beyond 4 years; extrapolating VA and treatment intervals beyond trial data realistically; and including the costs of low-vision). Four CEAs aligned with the quality and validity criteria. In two of these CEAs bevacizumab as-needed (PRN) was more cost-effective than bevacizumab monthly; aflibercept (VIEW); or ranibizumab monthly or PRN. In two CEAs, ranibizumab (PRN or treat and extent) was dominant over aflibercept. In two other CEAs, aflibercept was either more cost-effective or dominant over ranibizumab monthly or PRN., Conclusion: Two of the CEAs of sufficient quality and validity show that bevacizumab PRN is the most cost-effective treatment. Comparing ranibizumab and aflibercept, either treatment can be more cost-effective depending on the assumptions used for drug prices and treatment frequencies. The majority of the published CEAs are of insufficient quality and validity. They wrongly inform decision-makers at the cost of opportunities for ophthalmologists to treat patients. As such, they may negatively influence overall patient outcomes and societal costs. For future ophthalmic treatments, CEAs need to be improved and only published when they are of sufficient quality and validity., (© 2018 Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica Foundation. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Describing the natural course of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) is essential in discussing prognosis and treatment options with patients and to support cost-effectiveness studies., Methods: First, we performed a literature search in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane. We included randomized clinical trials and prospective observational studies reporting visual acuity (VA) in non-treated patients, 24 studies in total. We integrated VA data using best fit on Lineweaver-Burke plots and modelled with non-linear regression using reciprocal terms. Second, we performed a quality-of-life (QoL) study in nAMD patients. We measured VA with Radner reading charts and QoL with the Health Utilities Index issue 3 (HUI-3) questionnaire in 184 participants. We studied the relation VA-QoL with linear regression. Third, with Monte Carlo simulation, we integrated the VA model from the literature review and the relation VA-QoL from the QoL study., Results: Visual acuity was 0.4 and 0.07 after 5 years in the better-seeing, and worse-seeing eye, respectively. After 4.3 years, VA was <0.5 in the better-seeing eye; <0.3 after 7 years; 0.05 after 17 years. QoL score decreased from 0.6 to 0.45 after 10 years., Conclusions: The natural course of nAMD in both eyes needs to be considered when informing patients. Visual acuity in the best eye decreases to below 0.5 in 4.3 years. This affects QoL significantly.

Purpose: To determine whether there is a level of visual acuity (VA) in neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) above which the correlation of VA with disease-related quality of life (QoL) is significantly greater than below this level., Design: An observational, cross-sectional study., Participants: A total of 184 patients with nAMD aged at least 50 years were included in the study., Methods: In face-to-face interviews, we assessed QoL with the Macular Disease-Dependent Quality of Life (MacDQoL) questionnaire. We measured VA with standardized Radner reading charts. We used regression splines analysis with a single hinge point, with the MacDQoL score as the dependent variable and VA as the independent variable. The x-coordinate (VA) of the hinge point was varied and tested with each iteration. A second method of regression splines analysis was also performed, without a preset hinge point., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measure is the cutoff point at or below which VA is associated with significantly less change in QoL than above this cutoff. The linear coefficients below and above the cutoff are defined as change in MacDQoL score per logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) unit of change in VA., Results: With Snellen equivalent VA 0.05 (1.3 logMAR) or worse, the linear coefficient was 0.15. With VA better than 0.05, the linear coefficient was 2.40 (P value of the difference: 0.009)., Conclusions: When VA is above 0.05, there is a stronger and significant relation between VA and QoL. At or below this level, the relation between VA and QoL approaches zero. With better VA, a difference in VA implies a significant difference in QoL. With poorer VA, a difference in VA is unlikely to imply a difference in QoL. Therefore, in treating nAMD, the aim should be to keep Snellen VA above 0.05 to have an impact on QoL. If it is certain that the best-corrected VA below 0.05 is permanent, these findings imply there may be less, if any, benefit to continue further treatment. This is to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis., (Copyright © 2016 American Academy of Ophthalmology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a blinding disease placing considerable burden on society due to blindness-associated costs. Intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factors (anti-VEGFs) are effective in reducing the incidence of blindness, but at potentially high costs, depending on the cost of the drug used. Aflibercept has been introduced as an anti-VEGF equally effective to ranibizumab, but less costly. For this new drug, new cost-effectiveness analyses are needed, and AMD models used today give biased results. We investigated the cost-effectiveness of aflibercept compared to bevacizumab, ranibizumab, and no treatment and studied the influence of commonly used model parameters., Methods: A patient-level, visual acuity-based, 2-eye model was developed. Data on effectiveness were derived from randomized controlled trials evaluating the outcomes of aflibercept, bevacizumab, and ranibizumab. Utility and resource utilization were assessed in interviews with AMD patients. Costs were based on standard health care cost prices. Time horizons were two and five years. A societal perspective was employed., Results: Over five years, costs associated with aflibercept treatment were 36,030, with 2.15 QALYs. Costs associated with the bevacizumab regimens, ABC study as-needed (PRN); CATT study PRN; and CATT study 1×/month, were 19,367; 26,746; and 30,520, with 2.16; 2.17; and 2.15 QALYs, respectively. Costs associated with ranibizumab PRN and 1×/month were 45,491 and 74,837 with 2.16 and 2.15 QALYs, respectively. 'No treatment' was associated with 9530 and 1.96 QALYs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios versus 'no treatment' were: aflibercept-140,274; bevacizumab-51,062 (ABC PRN), 83,256 (CATT PRN) and 110,361 (1×/month); ranibizumab-181,667 (PRN) and 349,773 (1×/month). Results were highly dependent on whether only one or both eyes were included, length of time horizon, and whether the costs of blindness and low-vision were included in the analysis., Conclusions: Aflibercept is a cost-effective treatment for AMD over ranibizumab. However, aflibercept is not a cost-effective treatment when compared to bevacizumab. Application of inappropriate model assumptions leads to a biased cost-saving estimate of the cost-effectiveness of aflibercept. Therefore, cost-effectiveness analyses should be conducted with appropriate models.

Purpose: To present a new epidemiological method relying on randomized controlled clinical trial (RCT) data to assess whether a treatment was effective, aiding in the decision to continue or stop the treatment in clinical patients., Methods: A cutoff point is calculated in the change of a continuous outcome for which a proportion of treated patients clearly achieved a change better than this cutoff point as a result of the treatment. This cutoff point can then be applied to individual patients during routine therapy. The method was applied to reports of the Minimally Classic/Occult Trial of the Anti-VEGF Antibody Ranibizumab in the Treatment of Neovascular AMD (MARINA) trial, which included patients with AMD treated with monthly intravitreal injections of ranibizumab, and to reports of trials involving patients with high IOP, macular edema, and convergence insufficiency., Results: The cutoff point in the change in visual acuity (number of letters), above which a proportion of patients clearly benefited due to ranibizumab treatment, was -5.0 at 24 months follow-up. The proportion of treated patients who ended above this cutoff point due to the treatment was 60%. The cutoff point varies with time of follow-up and by subgroup., Conclusions: Contrary to common interpretation, no change, or a limited decline, in the outcome (visual acuity) can still imply that the patients are better off with the treatment than with no treatment. Stopping the treatment above the cutoff point may not be appropriate since it was effective in at least a proportion of patients. This method applies to a broad range of scales and conditions. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00056836.).

Background: Intravitreal ranibizumab and pegaptanib are registered for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. No formal safety study has been conducted for intravitreal bevacizumab. These anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) drugs are being used on a large scale in daily practice for different ocular diseases. The objective of the present study was to systematically assess and compare the incidences of adverse events of anti-VEGFs., Methods: A systematic search was conducted in April 2009 with no date restrictions in PubMed, Embase, Toxline, and the Cochrane library. We used the terms pegaptanib, bevacizumab, ranibizumab, intravitreal, and specific and general terms for adverse events. Studies describing adverse events after anti-VEGF injections and the official safety data were included., Results: Two hundred and seventy-eight articles were included, and the incidences of adverse events were calculated separately for effect, safety, and specific side effect studies. The incidences of serious ocular and nonocular adverse events were approximately below 1 per 100 injections for intravitreal bevacizumab, intravitreal ranibizumab, and intravitreal pegaptanib. Most mild ocular adverse events were below 5 per 100 injections., Conclusion: The reported rates of serious adverse events were low after anti-VEGF injections. There is no sufficient evidence to conclude that there is a difference in incidences between the anti-VEGFs.