ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2020
Cost-effectiveness of intravitreal conbercept versus other treatments for wet age-related macular degeneration.
Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sponsorship bias in published pharmacoeconomic evaluations of national reimbursement negotiation drugs in China: a systematic review.BMJ global health · 2023Pooled it
- Molecular Determinants of Intravitreal Anti-VEGF Durability: Drug Architecture, Intraocular Pharmacokinetics, Target Biology and Treatment Resistance.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of the use of faricimab in diabetic macular edema in China.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2026Article
- Comparison of efficacy and safety of intravitreal ranibizumab and conbercept before vitrectomy in Chinese proliferative diabetic retinopathy patients: a prospective randomized controlled trial.Eye and vision (London, England) · 2022Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Conbercept vs. Ranibizumab for Age-Related Macular Degeneration, Diabetic Macular Edema, and Pathological Myopia: Population-Based Cohort Study and Markov Model.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
- Conbercept for Treatment of Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration and Visual Impairment due to Diabetic Macular Edema or Pathologic Myopia Choroidal Neovascularization: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2021Review
- Baseline predictors of short-term visual outcomes after intravitreal conbercept injection for neovascular age-related macular degeneration.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
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe potential benefits of conbercept, aflibercept, and ranibizumab has been reported in patients with wet age-related macular degeneration (wAMD). However, their economic outcomes are still unclear. The current study would assess the cost-effectiveness of conbercept, aflibercept and ranibizumab for patients with wAMD in a Chinese healthcare setting.
methodsA Markov model was constructed based on patient visual acuity. Five regimens were considered: usual care without active anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatment, IVT-AFL (intravitreal aflibercept on a two-monthly basis following three initial monthly doses), RBZ q4 (ranibizumab monthly dosing), RBZ RPN (ranibizumab dose as needed) and IVT-CON (intravitreal conbercept on a three-monthly basis after three initial monthly doses). Clinical, cost, and utility data were collected from published literature.
resultsIn comparison with usual care, the IVT-AFL, RBZ q4, RBZ PRN, and IVT-CON strategies provided an additional 0.235, 0.338, 0.228, and 0.324 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), respectively. They had marginal costs of $6,800, $10,084, $4,640, and $6,173, respectively. The strategies also produced incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of $28,892, $29,857, $20,338 and $19,028/QALY, respectively. One-way sensitivity analysis showed utility of blindness (best-corrected visual acuity <35) to have the greatest sensitivity of all the parameters. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) indicated that IVT-CON yielded the greatest probabilities of cost-effectiveness (about 92%) compared with other strategies.
conclusionsConbercept is a cost-effective option for the treatment of wAMD in a Chinese healthcare setting.
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.