SynthesisEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2026
Cost-effectiveness analysis of anti-VEGF drugs in the treatment of visual impairment due to diabetic macular edema: A systematic review.
Synthesis in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
purposeThis systematic review aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of anti–vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) drugs in the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME), providing a comprehensive synthesis of economic and quality of life outcomes.
methodsA systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Scopus, PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science core collection, DARE, NHSEED, HTA, and Google scholar were searched to September 7, 2025, without language or publication type restrictions. Eligible studies compared the cost-effectiveness of anti-VEGF drugs for DME. We extracted economic outcomes from each study, including incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs, and evaluated methodological quality using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. All costs were adjusted to 2024 US dollars.
resultsOf 2,136 studies identified, 12 met the inclusion criteria. Findings were heterogeneous across settings and perspectives. Bevacizumab showed the greatest economic value, achieving comparable gains in visual acuity to aflibercept and ranibizumab at a substantially lower cost, while differences between ranibizumab and aflibercept were less consistent and varied across studies. Conbercept, assessed in one Chinese study, dominated ranibizumab in real-world conditions. Faricimab, analyzed in the UK, Colombia, and Japan, was consistently cost-effective or dominant relative to ranibizumab, aflibercept, bevacizumab, and brolucizumab, primarily due to fewer injections and lower monitoring costs. Cost-effectiveness varied with assumptions about time horizon, pricing, treatment frequency, perspective, and willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds.
conclusionEvidence suggests that bevacizumab remains the most cost-effective first-line treatment compared to aflibercept and ranibizumab where permitted. Newer agents such as faricimab show promising cost and efficacy profiles, suggesting potential for more sustainable DME management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41739212What 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.