Evicenter
P&T meetings

4D-150

Neovascular age-related macular degeneration

Regulatory submission
Not announced
Launch
Not announced
180 sources

Section 5 of 6

Economic information and modeling report

23 evidence topics · 19 sources

Modeling overview

Summary

No 4D-150-specific cost-effectiveness analysis, budget impact model, health technology assessment, announced price, or published analyst price estimate was identified. 4D-150 is in Phase 3 development for wet AMD. The sponsor has not disclosed a price and has said that 4D-150 would likely be priced above a single intravitreal anti-VEGF injection. The sponsor expects 4D-150 to fit the U.S. Medicare Part B buy-and-bill model used by retina clinics, cites flexible pricing enabled by low cost of goods, and describes a value proposition that aligns incentives to long-term disease control. The sponsor estimates the 2025 global branded retinal vascular disease anti-VEGF market at $16 billion, of which approximately $10 billion is wet AMD and approximately $4 billion is DME, and states that more than 600,000 U.S. patients receive regular anti-VEGF therapy across more than 800,000 eyes. Under the Otsuka license, the Asia-Pacific territory represents approximately 10% of the global retinal anti-VEGF market, and 4DMT retains rights to approximately 85% of the commercial potential of 4D-150.

One published U.S. analysis addresses the value of a one-time anti-VEGF gene therapy for nAMD. A discounted cash flow model estimated present values of $208,420.61, $219,093.31, and $17,379.41 for a one-time alternative to lifelong aflibercept, ranibizumab, and bevacizumab, respectively; values ranged from $78,323.19 to $292,449.87 by age at first injection and from $148,422.91 to $388,096.81 by injection frequency. The authors proposed bevacizumab as the base case and recommended reimbursement mechanisms with contingencies for sustained efficacy.

Published U.S. economic evaluations of long-acting anti-VEGF treatments report the following. Over 5 years from a U.S. payer perspective, faricimab dominated aflibercept 2 mg (US$52,797 and 2.80 QALYs versus US$62,367 and 2.72 QALYs; 22.6 versus 34 injections), with a 97% probability of cost-effectiveness at US$100,000/QALY; under a Q8W faricimab regimen the ICER was US$162,175 per QALY. A Regeneron-funded model using 2025 wholesale acquisition costs (aflibercept 8 mg 2677.50 USD and faricimab 2289.65 USD per injection) estimated total 3-year costs for aflibercept 8 mg that were 1978.74 USD lower than faricimab in nAMD (12.25 versus 14.80 injections). For the port delivery system with ranibizumab, one cost-utility analysis found an incremental cost-utility ratio of $75,497/QALY at 1 year, $304,108/QALY at 5 years, and $761,646/QALY at 12 years versus ranibizumab injections; a Medicare cost analysis found that the port delivery system with fixed 6-month refills cost $21,016 over 1 year and $89,218 over 5 years, with break-even at 10.8 ranibizumab, 9.3 aflibercept, and 34.5 bevacizumab injections in year 1. An 11-year cost-utility analysis found aflibercept not cost-effective compared with bevacizumab ($1,151,451/QALY incremental).

Medicare Part B payment limits for July to September 2026 were $743.605 per 1 mg for aflibercept (J0178), $298.683 per 1 mg for aflibercept HD (J0177), $803.255 per 1 mg for aflibercept-ayyh (Q5147), $32.381 per 0.1 mg for faricimab (J2777), $51.090 per 0.1 mg for ranibizumab (J2778), $359.713 per 1 mg for brolucizumab (J0179), and $74.823 per 10 mg for bevacizumab (J9035). At labeled nAMD doses these limits correspond to $1,487.21 per aflibercept 2 mg injection, $1,606.51 per aflibercept-ayyh 2 mg injection, $2,389.46 per aflibercept 8 mg injection, $1,942.86 per faricimab 6 mg injection, $255.45 per ranibizumab 0.5 mg injection, and $2,158.28 per brolucizumab 6 mg injection (calculated). In 2025, Medicare Part B spending was $2,378,138,734 for Vabysmo (J2777; 213,777 beneficiaries), $1,537,858,049 for Eylea (J0178; 222,280 beneficiaries), $1,140,248,051 for Eylea HD (J0177; 99,161 beneficiaries), and $522,266,027 for the aflibercept biosimilar Pavblu (Q5147; 80,140 beneficiaries); the nine branded and biosimilar ophthalmic anti-VEGF codes listed (bevacizumab not included) totaled approximately $5.67 billion (calculated), across all indications. In 2024, Part B spending on Eylea was $2,365,369,089 (293,280 beneficiaries). From 2014 to 2023, Medicare beneficiaries received 36,398,293 intravitreal anti-VEGF injections, and standardized Medicare reimbursement per injection declined for aflibercept from $1527.37 to $1379.54.

For one-time ocular gene therapy, Spark Therapeutics set the wholesale acquisition cost of voretigene neparvovec at $425,000 per eye in January 2018 and introduced an outcomes-based rebate arrangement with short-term efficacy (30 to 90 days) and long-term durability (30 months) measures, a direct-to-payer contracting model, and a proposal to CMS for installment payments.

Economic evaluation or health technology assessment of 4D-150

No evidence found.

Value of a one-time anti-VEGF gene therapy for nAMD: discounted cash flow analysis

Cost-utility of faricimab versus aflibercept in nAMD from a U.S. payer perspective

“A Markov model of five health states defined by best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) simulated disease progression over 5 years.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)

“The model was conducted from a healthcare payer perspective in the US and developed over a 5-year time horizon in the base-case analysis.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)

“Faricimab costs were calculated using HCPCS J2777 (payment limit per 0.1 mg) multiplied by 60 units to represent a 6.0-mg dose.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)

“In the base case, faricimab yielded 2.80 QALYs for US$52,797, whereas aflibercept produced 2.72 QALYs at US$62,367.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)

“Faricimab required markedly fewer injections over 5 years (22.6 vs 34).” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)

“Under the Q8W regimen, faricimab was more costly than aflibercept (US$76,008 vs US$62,368) despite higher effectiveness (2.801 vs 2.716 QALYs; incremental QALYs 0.084).” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)

“The resulting ICER of US$162,175 per QALY exceeded commonly cited WTP thresholds, indicating that faricimab was not cost effective at this dosing interval.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)

“Probabilistic analysis showed a 97% probability of faricimab being cost effective at US$100,000/QALY.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)

Outcomes-based and installment payment models for a one-time ocular gene therapy: voretigene neparvovec

Health state utilities, direct medical costs, and price assumed in the base case

Base case model inputQuoted value
Age at model entry, y, mean (SD) [range]“15 (10.9) [4-44]”
Health utility, moderate visual impairment“0.71 (0.04) [0.63-0.78]”
Health utility, severe visual impairment“0.62 (0.02) [0.58-0.65]”
Health utility, profound visual impairment“0.52 (0.03) [0.46-0.57]”
Health utility, count fingers“0.35 (0.03) [0.30-0.40]”
Health utility, hand motion, light perception, or no light perception“0.15 (0.05) [0.06-0.24]”
Annual direct medical cost, moderate visual impairment, $“8818 (882) [7055-10 582]”
Annual direct medical cost, hand motion, light perception, or no light perception, $“13 737 (1374) [10 990-16 485]”
Annual discount rate for costs and utilities, %“3.0”
Voretigene neparvovec-rzyl, price per injection, $“854 535”

Budget impact model

Approach and framework

No evidence found.

Perspective and time frame

No evidence found.

Epidemiology and eligible population inputs

No evidence found.

Cost assumptions

No evidence found.

Model outcomes

No evidence found.

Results

Base case

No evidence found.

Scenario analyses

No evidence found.

Budget impact model discussion

No evidence found.