ArticlePloS one2015
Treatment Options for Age-Related Macular Degeneration: A Budget Impact Analysis from the Perspective of the Brazilian Public Health System.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Age-related macular degeneration and resource utilization in the Brazilian public healthcare system: a real-world retrospective study.BMC ophthalmology · 2021Observational
- The complexities underlying age-related macular degeneration: could amyloid beta play an important role?Neural regeneration research · 2017Review
- Cost-effectiveness of Anti-VEGF treatments for age-related macular degeneration: a Brazilian perspective.Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologiaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAge-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a disease that causes reduced visual acuity and blindness. The new treatment options for AMD are not provided by the Brazilian public health system.
objectiveTo conduct a budget impact analysis of three scenarios for the introduction of AMD treatments: all the medications (verteporfin, ranibizumab, and bevacizumab-the reference scenario), ranibizumab alone, and bevacizumab alone.
methodsThe basic assumption was that the Brazilian public health system would treat the entire target population with AMD aged > 70 years between 2008 and 2011. The size of the population of interest was estimated from official population projections and the prevalence of the disease was obtained from a systematic review. Medication prices were estimated by weighting their market values with correction factors to take account of the public procurement policy. The possibility of aliquoting bevacizumab was also considered. A panel of experts was consulted to estimate the market share of the different medications for the reference scenario. The incremental costs of the ranibizumab-alone and bevacizumab-alone scenarios compared to the reference scenario were calculated. Univariate sensitivity analyses were run to check the robustness of the model.
resultsIn four years, the Brazilian public health system would have treated 1,136,349 individuals with AMD. The annual costs of treating one patient would have been US$476.65 for bevacizumab, US$11,469.39 for ranibizumab, and US$4,376.28 for verteporfin. The incremental cost of the ranibizumab-alone scenario would have been US$1,878,318,056.00 in four years, while the incremental cost for the bevacizumab-alone scenario would have been a reduction of US$4,978,326,359.00 (i.e., a cost saving) in the same period. The bevacizumab-alone option was found to represent a cost saving across sensitivity analyses.
conclusionThe introduction of bevacizumab for the treatment of AMD is recommended for the Brazilian Public Health System.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.