Cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab compared with pegaptanib in neovascular age-related macular degeneration.

objectiveTo assess the cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab compared with pegaptanib in the treatment of patients with minimally classic/occult neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD), from a societal perspective in Spain.

methodsWe constructed a Markov model with five states defined by visual acuity (VA) in the better-seeing eye (Snellen scale): VA >20/40, < or =20/40 to >20/80, < or =20/80 to >20/200, < or =20/200 to >20/400, < or =20/400, and an additional death state. Two cohorts of patients were distributed along the VA states, and treated with either ranibizumab or pegaptanib. Transition probabilities assigned for movement between these states with both drugs were obtained from published randomized clinical trials. Medical costs related to AMD treatment and follow-up, medical costs related to AMD comorbidities, and non-medical-related costs were taken into account. Costs (2008 Euro), health outcomes (Quality-adjusted life years--QALYs), both discounted at a 3.5% annual rate, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER: euro/QALY), were determined for a lifetime horizon in the base case analysis. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore different scenarios and assumptions in the model.

resultsTreating patients with varying degrees of visual impairment with monthly ranibizumab instead of pegaptanib was 71,206 euro more costly and provided 2.437 additional QALYs (29,224 euro/QALY). When administered on an as-needed basis, as in the Prospective Optical Coherence Tomography Imaging of Patients with Neovascular AMD Treated with Intraocular Ranibizumab (PrONTO) trial, the cost per QALY gained with ranibizumab was reduced to 4,623 euro.

conclusionsThe cost per QALY gained with monthly ranibizumab compared with pegaptanib in the minimally classic/occult neovascular AMD population is just below the 30,000 euro threshold below which new drugs are sometimes regarded as cost-effective strategies in Spain. In this model, the key variables with greater impact on the cost-effectiveness results were the selected time horizon and the chosen extrapolation method, the source for data on pegaptanib efficacy and the number of ranibizumab injections. When administered on an as-needed basis, ranibizumab was a cost-effective strategy compared to pegaptanib in this population.