The quality of pharmacoeconomic evaluations of age-related macular degeneration therapeutics: A systematic review and quantitative appraisal of the evidence

British Journal of Ophthalmology

Volumn 94, Issue 9, 2010, Pages 1118-1126

  Foster, William J ^a,b,c   Tufail, Waqas ^d   Issa, Amalia M ^c,d  

^a University of Houston   (United States)

^b HOUSTON METHODIST HOSPITAL   (United States)

^c HOUSTON METHODIST RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BEVACIZUMAB; PEGAPTANIB; RANIBIZUMAB; VERTEPORFIN; ANGIOGENESIS INHIBITOR;

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HUMAN; LASER COAGULATION; PHOTODYNAMIC THERAPY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; QUALITY CONTROL; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RETINA MACULA AGE RELATED DEGENERATION; REVIEW; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); ECONOMICS; MACULAR DEGENERATION; PHARMACOECONOMICS; PHOTOCHEMOTHERAPY;

ANGIOGENESIS INHIBITORS; CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS, PHARMACEUTICAL; HUMANS; LIGHT COAGULATION; MACULAR DEGENERATION; PHOTOCHEMOTHERAPY;

EID: 77956632023     PISSN: 00071161     EISSN: 14682079     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bjo.2009.170282     Document Type: Review

References (66)

1. Holz FG, Wolfensberger TJ, Piguet B, et al. Bilateral macular drusen in age-related macular degeneration: prognosis and risk factors. Ophthalmology 1994;101:1522-8. (Pubitemid 24028924)
2. Macular Photocoagulation Study Group. Five-year follow-up of fellow eyes of patients with age-related macular degeneration and unilateral extrafoveal choroidal neovascularization. Arch Ophthalmol 1993;111:1189-99.
3. Macular Photocoagulation Study Group. Risk factors for choroidal neovascularization in the second eye of patients with juxtafoveal or subfoveal choroidal neovascularization secondary to age-related macular degeneration. Arch Ophthalmol 1997;115:741-7.
4. Bressler NM, Munoz B, Maguire MG, et al. Five-year incidence and disappearance of drusen and retinal pigment epithelial abnormalities: Waterman Study. Arch Ophthalmol 1995;113:301-8.
5. Klein R, Klein BE, Jensen SC, et al. The five-year incidence and progression of age-related maculopathy: the Beaver Dam Eye Study. Ophthalmology 1997;104:7-21. (Pubitemid 27081937)
6. Klaver CC, Assink JJ, van Leeuwen R, et al. Incidence and progression rates of age-related maculopathy: the Rotterdam Study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2001;42:2237-41.
7. Klein R, Klein BE, Tomany SC, et al. Ten-year incidence and progression rates of age-related maculopathy: the Beaver Dam Eye Study. Ophthalmology 2002;109:1767-79.
8. Ferris FL 3rd, Fine SL, Hyman L. Age-related macular degeneration and blindness due to neovascular maculopathy. Arch Ophthalmol 1984;102:1640-2.
9. American Academy of Ophthalmology. Age-related macular degeneration, preferred practice pattern. San Francisco: American Academy of Ophthalmology, 2006. http://www.aao.org/ppp (accessed 30 Oct 2009).
10. Klein R, Klein BEK, Knudtson MD, et al. Fifteen-year cumulative incidence of age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology 2007;114:253-62.
11. Wang JJ, Foran S, Mitchell P. Age-specific prevalence and causes of bilateral and unilateral visual impairment in older Australians: the Blue Mountains Eye Study. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol 2000;28;268-73.
12. Mitchell P, Wang JJ, Smith W, et al. Smoking and the 5-year incidence of age-related maculopathy: the Blue Mountains Eye Study. Arch Ophthalmol 2002;120:1357-63. (Pubitemid 36105441)
13. Wolowacz SE, Roskell N, Kelly S, et al. Cost effectiveness of pegaptanib for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration in the UK. Pharmacoeconomics 2007;25:863-79. (Pubitemid 47481636)
14. Buhrmann R, Hodge WG, Gold D. Forecasting the vision loss epidemic in Canada: current and projected estimates of age-related eye disease: Interim summary tables prepared for the National Coalition on Vision Health 2006.
15. Topouzis F, Coleman AL, Harris A, et al. Prevalence of age-related macular degeneration in Greece: The Thessaloniki Eye Study. Am J Ophthalmol 2006;142:1076-9.
16. Kawasaki R, Wang JJ, Aung T, et al. Prevalence of age-related macular degeneration in a Malay population. Ophthalmology 2008;115:1735-41.
17. US Census Bureau. National population projections, 2008. http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/2008projections.html (accessed 30 Oct 2009).
18. European Central Bank. Demographic change in the Euro area: projections and consequences. ECB Monthly Bulletin Oct 2006. http://www.ecb.int/pub/pdf/ other/pp4964-mb200610-n.pdf?d86d6b3376-ac6-04a2b65ba00851-73 (accessed 3 Mar 2010).
19. Coleman AL, Stone K, Ewing SK, et al. Higher risk of multiple falls among elderly women who lose visual acuity. Ophthalmology 2004;111:857-62. (Pubitemid 38586675)
20. Lord SR, Dayhew J. Visual risk factors for falls in older people. J Am Geriatr Soc 2001;49:508-15. (Pubitemid 32525019)
21. Klein BE, Moss SE, Klein R, et al. Associations of visual function with physical outcomes and limitations 5 years later in an older population: the Beaver Dam Eye Study. Ophthalmology 2003;110:644-50. (Pubitemid 36520057)
22. Ivers RQ, Cumming RG, Mitchell P, et al. Visual impairment and falls in older adults: the Blue Mountains Eye Study. J Am Geriatr Soc 1998;46:58-64. (Pubitemid 28037674)
23. Ivers RQ, Norton R, Cumming RG, et al. Visual impairment and risk of hip fracture. Am J Epidemiol 2000;152:633-9.
24. Buckley JG, Elliott DB. Ophthalmic interventions to help prevent falls. Geriatrics & Aging 2006;9:276-80.
25. BlueCross BlueShield Association (BCBSA). Technology Evaluation Center (TEC). Special report: Current and evolving strategies in the treatment of age-related macular degeneration. TEC Assessment Program Vol. 20, No 11, Dec 2005. http://blueweb.bcbs.com/global-assets/special-content/tec-assessments/ vol20/20-11.pdf (accessed 30 Oct 2009).
26. Department of Health & Human Services (DHHS). Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). CMS manual system. Medicare national coverage determinations. Pub 100.03, Transmittal 9, 2004. http://www.cms.hhs.gov/ transmittals/Downloads/R9NCD.pdf (accessed 30 October 2009).
27. National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Guidance on the use of photodynamic therapy for age-related macular degeneration. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE), 2003 Sep 26 (Technology appraisal; no. 68).
28. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Final appraisal determinationdranibizumab and pegaptanib for age-related macular degeneration. UK: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, 2008.
29. Packo KH. Compounding pharmacies and the law: How did we get into this anti-VEGF pickle? Retina Times 2008;26:18-22.
30. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. JAMA 2000;283:2008-12.
31. Chiou CF, Hay JW, Wallace JF, et al. Development and validation of a grading system for the quality of cost-effectiveness studies. Med Care 2003;41:32-44.
32. Ofman JJ, Sullivan SD, Neuman PJ, et al. Examining the value and quality of health economic analysis: implications of utilizing the QHES. J Manag Care Pharm 2003;9:53-61.
33. Drummond MF, Jefferson TO. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. The BMJ Economic Evaluation Working Party. BMJ 1996;313:275-83.
34. Drummond MF, Richardson WS, O'Brien BJ, et al. User's guide to the medical literature. XIII. How to use an article on economic analysis of clinical practice. A. Are the results of the study valid? Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA 1997;277:1552-7.
35. O'Brien B, Heyland D, Richardson WS, et al. User's guide to the medical literature. XIII. How to use an article on economic analysis of clinical practice. B. What are the results and will they help me in caring for my patients? JAMA 1997;277:1802-6.
36. Torrance GW, Blaker D, Detsky A, et al. Canadian guidelines for economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals. Canadian Collaborative Workshop for Pharmacoeconomics. Pharmacoeconomics 1996;9:535-59. (Pubitemid 26163467)
37. Au F, Prahardhi S, Shiell A. Reliability of two instruments for critical assessment of economic evaluations. Value Health 2008;11:435-9.
38. Spiegel BMR, Targownik LE, Kanwal F, et al. The quality of published health economic analysis in digestive diseases: A systematic review and quantitative appraisal. Gastroenterology 2004;127:403-11. (Pubitemid 39091888)
39. Peterson LE, Goodman C, Karnes EK, et al. Assessment of the quality of cost analysis literature in physical therapy. Phys Ther 2009;89:733-55.
40. Carlson JJ, Henrikson NB, Veenstra DL, et al. Economic analyses of human genetics services: A systematic review. Genet Med 2005;7:519-23.
41. Gerkens S, Crott R, Cleemput I, et al. Comparison of three instruments assessing the quality of economic evaluations: a practical exercise on economic evaluations of the surgical treatment of obesity. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2008;24:318-25. (Pubitemid 351950168)
42. Ligthart S, Vlemmix F, Dendukuri N, et al. The cost-effectiveness of drug-eluting stents: a systematic review. CMAJ 2007;176:199-205. (Pubitemid 46168380)
43. Brown A, Hodge W, Kymes S, et al. Management of neovascular age-related macular degeneration: systematic drug class review and economic evaluation (technology overview number 43). Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, 2008.
44. Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC). Photodynamic therapy with verteporfin (PDT-V) for age-related macular degeneration, Assessment report. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing, 2001.
45. Donati G. Cost-Effectiveness of photodynamic therapy with verteporfin for choroidal neovascularization in age-related macular degeneration in routine clinical practice in Switzerland. J Fr Ophthalmol 2007;30:837-41.
46. Lees M, Davey P, Price N, et al. Economic evaluation of photodynamic therapy with verteporfin for small subfoveal CNV lesions: the case for Australia. Value in Health 2003;6:239.
47. Hopley C, Salkeld G, Mitchell P. Cost utility of photodynamic therapy for predominantly classic neovascular age related macular degeneration. Br J Ophthalmol 2004;88:982-7. (Pubitemid 38437856)
48. Bansback N, Davis S, Brazier J. Using contrast sensitivity to estimate the cost-effectiveness of verteporfin in patients with predominantly classic age-related macular degeneration. Eye 2006;21:1455-63.
49. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Final appraisal determinationdphotodynamic therapy for age-related macular degeneration. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence, 2003.
50. Sharma S, Brown GC, Brown MM, et al. The cost-effectiveness of photodynamic therapy for fellow eyes with subfoveal choroidal neovascularization secondary to Age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology 2001;108:2051-9. (Pubitemid 33032778)
51. Muslera E, Natal C. Cost-effectiveness of photodynamic therapy in age-related macular degeneration. Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol 2006;81:199-204.
52. Rein DB, Saaddine JB, Wittenborn JS, et al. Cost-effectiveness of vitamin therapy for age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology 2007;114:1319-26.
53. Trevithick JR, Massel D, Robertson JM, et al. Model study of AREDS antioxidant supplementation of AMD compared to Visudyne: A dominant strategy? Ophthalmic Epidemiol 2004;11:337-46.
54. Smith DH, Drummond M, Fenn P. Modelling the long-term benefit of photodynamic therapy (PDT) with verteporfin for age-related macular degeneration (AMD). The University of York Center for health economics, Discussion paper 187, 2002.
55. Earnshaw SR, Javitt JC, Zlateva GP, et al. Cost-effectiveness model for age-related macular degeneration: comparing early and late macugen treatment. ISPOR 8th Annual European Congress Florence, Italy, 6-8 Nov 2005. http://www.rtihs.org/request/index.cfm?fuseaction=displayPID=561 (accessed 30 October 2009).
56. Smith DH, Fenn P, Drummond M. Cost-effectiveness of photodynamic therapy with verteporfin for age related macular degeneration: the UK case. Br J Ophthalmol 2004;88:1107-12. (Pubitemid 39141365)
57. Hopley C, Salkeld G, Wang JJ, et al. Cost utility of screening and treatment for early age related macular degeneration with zinc and antioxidants. Br J Ophthalmol 2004;88:450-4. (Pubitemid 38437856)
58. Sharma S, Bakal J, Sharma SM, et al. Drug pricing for a novel treatment for wet macular degeneration: using incremental cost-effectiveness to ensure societal value. Can J Ophthalmol 2005;40:369-77. (Pubitemid 40942263)
59. Busbee BG, Brown MM, Brown GC, et al. CME review: a cost-utility analysis of laser photocoagulation for extrafoveal choroidal neovascularization. Retina 2003;23:279-87.
60. Greiner RA. Cost of care for patients with age-related macular degeneration in Switzerland and cost-effectiveness of treatment with verteporfin therapy. Semin Ophthalmol 2001;16:218-22.
61. Brown GC, Brown MM, Campanella J, et al. The cost-utility of photodynamic therapy in eyes with neovascular macular degeneration - A value-based reappraisal with 5-year data. Am J Ophthalmol 2005;140:679-87.
62. Earnshaw SR, Javitt JC, Zlateva GP, et al. Cost-effectiveness model for age-related macular degeneration: comparing Macugen to Visudyne. ISPOR 8th Annual European Congress, Florence, Italy. 6-8 Nov 2005. http://www.rtihs.org/ request/index.cfm? fuseaction=displayPID=5612 (accessed 30 Oct 2009).
63. Meads C, Moore D. The clinical effectiveness and cost utility of photodynamic therapy for age-related macular degeneration. WMHTAC, Department of Public Health & Epidemiology University of Birmingham. Report number 24, 2001.
64. Brown GC, Brown MM, Brown HC, et al. A value-based medicine comparison of interventions for subfoveal neovascular macular degeneration. Ophthalmology 2007;114:1170-8.
65. Raftery J, Clegg A, Jones J, et al. Ranibizumab (Lucentis) versus bevacizumab (Avastin): modeling cost effectiveness. Br J Ophthalmol 2007;91:1244-6.
66. Meads C, Sales C, Roberts T, et al. Clinical effectiveness and cost-utility of photodynamic therapy for wet age-related macular degeneration: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2003;7:1-98.