ArticleBMJ open2025
Model-based pharmacoeconomic analysis of anti-VEGF strategies for neovascular age-related macular degeneration: a value-based comparison of real-world administration approaches.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Pharmacoeconomic analysis of switch to faricimab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration in real clinical practice.Global & regional health technology assessmentArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatments for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) using a value-based model that considers drug durability, dosing regimens and real-world administration strategies, including safe vial fractionation. DESIGN AND
settingModel-based pharmacoeconomic analysis using data from randomised clinical trials and network meta-analyses. Analysis conducted from the payer perspective using cost data from the Spanish National Health System.
methodsA model-based analysis compared five anti-VEGF agents-innovator and biosimilar ranibizumab, aflibercept 2 mg, brolucizumab and faricimab-across three dosing regimens: fixed, Pro Re Nata and Treat-and-Extend (TAE). Administration formats included single-use vials, prefilled syringes and vial fractionation (VF), with or without dead-space-free (DSF) syringes to minimise waste. The primary outcome was cost per optimal responder, defined as a patient gaining ≥15 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters, with and without adverse events. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using Number Needed to Treat (NNT), Net Efficacy Adjusted for Risk-NNT (adjusted for safety) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Secondary outcomes included the number of treated patients and optimal responders achievable within a fixed €1 000 000 budget.
resultsThe most cost-effective strategy was aflibercept 2 mg under a TAE regimen using DSF VF, with a total cost of €6214 per patient and a cost per optimal responder of €27 155. Under a fixed budget of €1 000 000, this approach allowed treatment of 160 patients, yielding 36 optimal responders. Faricimab with DSF VF ranked second, with a total cost of €5847 and a cost per optimal responder of €28 652, treating 171 patients and achieving 34 responders. In contrast, single-use vials without VF led to substantially higher total costs (eg, €11 305 for aflibercept TAE) and lower treatment capacity (eg, 88 patients treated).
conclusionsThis model demonstrates that combining durable agents, extended dosing intervals and optimised delivery strategies (eg, prefilled syringes and DSF VF) can substantially improve the cost-effectiveness and sustainability of anti-VEGF therapy in public health systems.
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.