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.
Sponsor statements on pricing, reimbursement, and practice economics of 4D-150
Sponsor commercial model: payers, practice economics, and cost of goods
| Stakeholder | Quoted statement |
|---|---|
| Payers | “Unique value proposition aligns incentives to long-term disease control and vision protection” |
| Payers | “Buy & bill model fit (U.S.)” |
| Payers | “Flexible pricing enabled by low COGS” |
| Practice workflow and economics | “Practice economics enhanced” |
| Practice workflow and economics | “Clinic capacity increased” |
| Global scalability | “Favorable COGS margin” |
Sponsor estimates of the anti-VEGF market and addressable population
| Market segment (2025E) | Quoted estimate |
|---|---|
| Global branded retinal vascular disease anti-VEGF market | “$16B Global Branded Retinal Vascular Disease Anti-VEGF Market (2025E)” |
| Wet AMD | “~$10B” |
| DME | “~$4B” |
| Other indications | “Other (Inc. RVO, DR) ~$2B” |
| Otsuka license territory | “APAC territory represents ~10% of global retinal anti-VEGF market” |
Sponsor statement on coverage and reimbursement uncertainty for genetic medicines
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
Direct and indirect costs of aflibercept 8 mg versus faricimab in the United States
Cost-utility of the port delivery system with ranibizumab
Medicare cost of the port delivery system versus intravitreal injections
Cost-utility of bevacizumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept monotherapy for nAMD
Medicare Part B spending on ophthalmic anti-VEGF agents, 2025
| HCPCS code | Brand name | Total spending, 2025 (Q1-Q4) | Total beneficiaries, 2025 (Q1-Q4) | Total claims, 2025 (Q1-Q4) | Average spending per claim, 2025 (Q1-Q4) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| J0178 | “EYLEA” | “1537858048.5” | “222280” | “857976” | “1792.4254857” |
| J0177 | “EYLEA HD” | “1140248051.1” | “99161” | “379249” | “3006.5947467” |
| Q5147 | “PAVBLU” | “522266026.53” | “80140” | “259747” | “2010.6720252” |
| J2777 | “VABYSMO” | “2378138734.4” | “213777” | “994661” | “2390.9037697” |
| J2778 | “LUCENTIS” | “44798421.18” | “21507” | “82587” | “542.43913909” |
| Q5128 | “CIMERLI” | “30172535.31” | “19257” | “34255” | “880.821349” |
| Q5124 | “BYOOVIZ” | “4244844.27” | “2334” | “6009” | “706.41442336” |
| J2779 | “SUSVIMO” | “6102918.48” | “493” | “818” | “7460.7805379” |
| J0179 | “BEOVU” | “10213333.7” | “1113” | “4504” | “2267.6140542” |
Medicare anti-VEGF injection volume and reimbursement per injection, 2014 to 2023
Medicare Part B spending attributable to on-label versus off-label anti-VEGF agent mix
Outcomes-based and installment payment models for a one-time ocular gene therapy: voretigene neparvovec
Economic burden of retinal diseases for which gene therapy is emerging
Model structure, perspective, and time horizon of a cost-effectiveness analysis of a one-time ocular gene therapy
Health state utilities, direct medical costs, and price assumed in the base case
| Base case model input | Quoted 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” |
Base case costs and quality-adjusted life-years of a one-time ocular gene therapy versus standard care
| Cost component and outcome, base case, discounted | Voretigene neparvovec-rzyl | Standard care | Incremental value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct medical costs, $ | “301 794” | “406 404” | “−104 610” |
| Drug, $ | “854 535” | “0” | “854 535” |
| Indirect costs, $ | “1 063 739” | “2 373 702” | “−1 309 963” |
| Total costs, $ | “2 220 069” | “2 780 106” | “−560 038” |
| Quality-adjusted life-years | “18.1” | “8.6” | “9.4” |
Sensitivity of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio to durability of the one-time treatment effect
Timing of cost and benefit under buy-and-bill payment for a one-time therapy
One-time cost of treating the eligible United States population and the cost per covered enrollee
Independent assessment reaching a different incremental cost-effectiveness ratio
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.