Drug pricing for a novel treatment for wet macular degeneration: Using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios to ensure societal value

Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology

Volumn 40, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 369-377

  Sharma, Sanjay ^a   Bakal, Jeff ^a   Sharma, Susan M ^a   Covert, Dave ^b   Shah, Gaurav K ^c  

^a QUEEN S UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b Alarcon Research Ltd   (United States)

^c WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Age factor; Anecortave acetate; Cost effectiveness analysis; Macular degeneration; Medical economics; Photodynamic therapy; Quality of life; Utilities; Verteporfin

Indexed keywords

ANECORTAVE; BENZOPORPHYRIN DERIVATIVE;

ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; COST UTILITY ANALYSIS; DRUG COST; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG SAFETY; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HUMAN; MODEL; PHASE 3 CLINICAL TRIAL; PHOTODYNAMIC THERAPY; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; REIMBURSEMENT; RETINA MACULA AGE RELATED DEGENERATION; SUBRETINAL NEOVASCULARIZATION; VISUAL ACUITY;

EID: 21744452454     PISSN: 00084182     EISSN: 17153360     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0008-4182(05)80079-1     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. The Eye Diseases Prevalence Research Group. Causes and prevalence of visual impairment among adults in the United States. Arch Ophthalmol 2004;122:477-85.
2. Bressler NM, Bressler SB, Congdon NC, Ferris FL 3rd, Friedman DS, Klein R, et al; Age-Related Eye Disease Study Research Group. Potential public health impact of Age-Related Eye Disease Study results: AREDS report no. 11. Arch Ophthalmol 2003;121:1621-4.
3. Miskala PH, Bass KB, Bressler NM, Childs AL, Hawkins BS, Mangione CM, et al; Submacular Surgery Trials (SST) Research Croup. Surgery for subfoveal choroidal neovascularization in age-related macular degeneration: quality-of-life findings: SST report no. 12. Ophthalmology 2004;111: 1981-92.
4. West SK, Rubin CS, Broman AT, Munoz B, Bandeen-Roche K, Turano T; SEE Project Team. How does visual impairment affect performance on tasks of everyday life? The SEE Project. Arch Ophthalmol 2002;120:774-80.
5. DeCarlo DK, Scilley K, Wells J, Owsley C. Driving habits and health-related quality of life in patients with age-related maculopathy. Optom Vis Sci 2003;80:207-13.
6. Williams RA, Brody BL, Thomas RG, Kaplan RM, Brown SL. The psychosocial impact of macular degeneration. Arch Ophthalmol 1998;116:514-20.
7. Taylor HR, McCarty CA, Nanjan MB, Klein BEK, Spaeth GL, Ferris FL, et al. Vision impairment predicts five-year mortality. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 2000;98:91-9.
8. Canterbury Communications, A clear vision: solutions to Canada's vision loss crisis. Report on symposium The cost of blindness - What it means to Canadians, Available: www.costofblindness.org (accessed 2005 Feb 25).
9. Sharma S, Brown GC, Brown MM, Shah GK, Snow K, Brown H, et al. Converting visual acuity to utilities. Can J Ophthalmol 2000;35:267-72.
10. Brown GC, Sharma S, Brown MM, Kistler J, Utility values and age-related macular degeneration. Arch Ophthalmol 2000;118:47-51.
11. Saaddine JB, Narayan KM, Vinicor F, Vision loss: A public health problem? Ophthalmology 2003;110:253-5.
12. Macular Photocoagulation Study Group, Laser photocoagulation for juxtafoveal choroidal neovascularization. Five-year results from randomized clinical trials. Arch Ophthalmol 1994;112:500-9.
13. Macular Photocoagulation Study Group. Argon laser photocoagulation for neovascular maculopathy: five-year results from randomized clinical trials. Arch Ophthalmol 1991;109: 1109-14.
14. Treatment of Age-Related Macular Degeneration with Photodynamic Therapy (TAP) Study Group. Photodynamic therapy of subfoveal choroidal neovascularization in age-related macular degeneration with verreporfin: one-year results of 2 randomized clinical trials - TAP report no. 1 [published erratum appears in Arch Ophthalmol 2000;118: 488]. Arch Ophthalmol 1999;117:1329-45.
15. Bressler NM; Treatment of Age-Related Macular Degeneration with Photodynamic Therapy (TAP) Study Group. Photodynamic therapy of subfoveal choroidal neovascularization in age-related macular degeneration with verteporfin: two-year results of 2 randomized clinical reports. TAP report 2. Arch Ophthalmol 2001;119:198-207.
16. Gragoudas ES, Adamis AP, Cunningham ET Jr, Feinsod M, Guyer DR; VEGF Inhibition Study in Ocular Neovascularization Clinical Trial Group. Pegaptanib for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. N Engl J Med 2004;351:-2805-16.
17. Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. Ontario guidelines for economic analysis of pharmaceutical products. Toronto: the Ministry; 1994. Available: www.health.gov.on. ca/english/providers/pub/drugs/economic/ economic_mn. html (accessed 2005 Feb 25).
18. Principles of a sound drug formulary system. Alexandria, Va.: Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy; 2000. Available: www.amcp.org/data/nav_content/ drugformulary%2Epdf (accessed 2005 Mar 13).
19. Laupacis A, Feeny D, Detsky AS, Tugwell PX. How attractive does a new technology have to he to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. Can Med Assoc J 1992;146:473-81.
20. Chumney ECG, Biddle AK, Simpson KN. Survey of acceptable variations in cost-effectiveness ratios: a brief overview. Available: www.ispor.org/news/ articles/oet03/survey.htm (accessed 2005 Feb 25).
21. Braithwaite RS. $50,000 per QALY: inertia, indifference, or irrationality? Available: http://smdm.confex.com/smdm/2004ga/techprogram/P1236. HTM (accessed 2005 Feb 25).
22. Laufer FN. On the cutting edge. The $50,000 question - Whose threshold is it? Soc Med Decis Making Newsl 2004; 16(4):4. Available: www.smdm.org/2004_fall.pdf (accessed 2005 Feb 25).
23. Hirth RA, Chernew ME, Miller E, Fendrick AM, Weissert WG. Willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life year: in search of a standard. Med Decis Making 2000;20:332-42.
24. PR Newswire. Alcon presents more Retaane® clinical information to retinal specialists. Available: http://sev.prnewswire. com/health-care- hospitals/20041021/DATH05821102004-1.html (accessed 2005 Feb 25).
25. Sharma S, Oliver-Fernandez, A, Bakal J, Hollands H, Brown GC, Brown MM. Utilities associated with diabetic retinopathy: results from a Canadian sample. Br J Ophthalmol 2003;87:259-01.
26. Blair J, Dugar A, Bakal J, Sharma S. A comparison of quality of life in AMD patients with monocular versus bilateral disease [abstract]. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2004;45: e-abstract 1381.
27. Practice Management Information Corporation. Nationwide charges for medicine, surgery, laboratory and radiology. In: Medical fees in the United States 2005. Los Angeles: PMIC; 2005.
28. Garis RI, Farmer KC. Examining costs of chronic conditions in a Medicaid population. Manag Care 2002;11(8):43-50.
29. Felson DT, Anderson JJ, Hannan MT, Milton RC, Wilson PW, Kiel DP. Impaired vision and hip fracture. The Framingham Study. J Am Geriatr Soc 1989;37:495-500.
30. Kochera A. Falls among older persons and the role of the home: an analysis of cost, incidence, and potential savings from home modification. Issue brief 56, Public Policy Institute, American Association of Retired Persons. Washington: AARP; 2002. p. 1-14. Available: http://research.aarp.org/il/ ib56_falls.html (accessed 2005 Feb 25).
31. Casten RJ, Rovner BW, Tasman W. Age-related macular degeneration and depression: a review of recent research. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2004;15:181-3.
32. Rovner BW, Casten RJ, Tasman WS. Effect of depression on vision function in age-related macular degeneration. Arch Ophthalmol 2002;120:1041-4.
33. Blazer DG. Depression in late life: review and commentary. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2003;58:249-65.
34. Williams RA, Brody BL, Thomas RG, Kaplan RM, Brown SI. The psychosocial impact of macular degeneration. Arch Ophthalmol 1998;116:514-20.
35. Devlin N, Parkin D. Does NICE have a cost-effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis. Health Econ 2004;13:437-52.
36. Hollands H, Lam M, Pater J, Albiani D, Brown GC, Brown M, et al. Reliability of the time trade-off technique of utility assessment in patients with retinal disease. Can J Ophthalmol 2001;36:202-9.
37. Sharma S, Brown GC, Brown MM, Hollands H, Robins R, Shah GK. Validity of the time trade-off and standard gamble methods of utility assessment in retinal patients. Br J Ophthalmol 2002;86:493-6.