ArticleBMC ophthalmology2026
Cost-effectiveness of the Port Delivery Platform compared with intravitreal injection of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor for patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 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
backgroundStandard ranibizumab anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) intravitreal injection (IVI) therapy for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) may be alternatively delivered using the Port Delivery Platform (PDP), a drug delivery system surgically inserted into the eye that was re-approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in July 2024. Quantifying the added health benefits and cost consequences of new health interventions is required in various health systems. This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of universal and targeted use of the PDP with ranibizumab compared to treat-and-extend (T&E) aflibercept injections for patients with nAMD in Norway.
methodsWe compared the PDP with ranibizumab 100 mg/ml with fixed 24-week refill-exchanges (Q24W) to T&E IVI with vial split aflibercept 2 mg. We developed a probabilistic visual acuity-based simulation model using data derived from published clinical trials and studies. Resources were valued using Norwegian healthcare tariffs and included time and travel costs, in line with Norwegian guidelines. We simulated individuals with nAMD (mean age of 75 years) at treatment initiation and with a best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of 71-85 Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters. Subgroup analysis simulated individuals undergoing monthly aflibercept treatment, who face long-distance travel times, or who feel extremely anxious about IVI. Main outcomes include total discounted lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) disaggregated by health state, treatment modality, and adverse events. Cost-effectiveness was measured using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and compared against benchmark thresholds of cost-effectiveness in Norway.
resultsUniversal use of the PDP (Q24W) provided greater health benefits (6.5606 QALYs) than aflibercept T&E (6.5516 QALYs) but increased costs by $11,431, yielding an ICER >$1 million per QALY gained, which far exceeds cost-effectiveness thresholds in Norway. In contrast, for patients requiring monthly IVI treatments or facing travel distances of ≥ 4 h, the PDP was considered cost-saving.
conclusionsCompared to aflibercept IVIs under a T&E regimen for bilateral nAMD, universal use of the PDP with 24-week refills is unlikely to be considered cost-effective in Norway. However, the PDP may be considered high-value for patients needing frequent IVI or facing long travel distances.
trial registrationNA.
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.