Summary

No budget impact model, cost-effectiveness analysis, sales forecast, or health technology assessment of the vorolanib intravitreal insert (DURAVYU, EYP-1901) was identified, and no price has been announced. EyePoint has stated that wet AMD and DME together represent a "$15B+ global market opportunity" and that it "may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies" to secure coverage and reimbursement. No Institute for Clinical and Economic Review assessment of any therapy for neovascular AMD was identified.

The product-specific input most relevant to a future model is treatment burden. In the LUGANO phase 3 trial (topline data, August 2026), the insert reduced treatment burden by 42% versus on-label aflibercept (maximum possible reduction, 60%), which the company stated "translates to two fewer injections on average" through week 56; 54% of participants receiving the insert were supplement-free through week 56. The primary non-inferiority endpoint was not met in the full dataset. LUCIA topline data are expected in the fourth quarter of 2026, with a potential NDA submission in the first half of 2027.

Comparator spending is concentrated in Medicare Part B. In 2024, fee-for-service Medicare spending was $3.0 billion for Eylea and Eylea HD (329,500 users; $9,200 per user) and $1.9 billion for Vabysmo (173,300 users; $11,100 per user), out of $65.5 billion for all Part B drugs. CMS data for 2024 show $2.37 billion for aflibercept 2 mg (J0178; 293,280 beneficiaries), $666 million for aflibercept 8 mg (J0177; 66,767 beneficiaries), $1.92 billion for faricimab (J2777; 172,503 beneficiaries), and $129 million for ranibizumab (J2778). Standardized Medicare reimbursement per injection declined from 2014 to 2023 for ranibizumab ($1234.35 to $724.74) and aflibercept ($1527.37 to $1379.54).

Published models of other anti-VEGF strategies show that injection frequency and acquisition price determine comparative cost. For the ranibizumab port delivery system, an approved sustained-delivery product, the break-even number of injections versus the system with 1 refill was 10.8 for ranibizumab, 9.3 for aflibercept, and 34.5 for bevacizumab, and the system cost more than bevacizumab in all scenarios; a cost-utility analysis found it cost effective versus ranibizumab injections at 1 year ($75,497 per QALY) but not at 5 years ($304,108 per QALY) or 12 years ($761,646 per QALY). A U.S. payer Markov model found faricimab dominant over aflibercept 2 mg over 5 years (22.6 vs 34 injections), with results most sensitive to drug acquisition prices. A manufacturer-funded model estimated 3-year total costs $1,978.74 lower with aflibercept 8 mg than faricimab in nAMD (12.25 vs 14.80 injections). A U.S. payer budget impact model of brolucizumab for a 1-million-member plan (nAMD prevalence 1.2%, 36.04% of members aged at least 50 years, 80% anti-VEGF uptake) showed that the budget effect changed direction with the dosing regimen assumed, from an annual saving of $94,170 to an increase of $824,696. Bevacizumab-related analyses estimated that an FDA-approved ophthalmic bevacizumab priced at $500 per dose would increase Medicare costs by $457 million, and that equalizing anti-VEGF mix to that of the highest-poverty communities would have lowered 2013 to 2023 Part B spending by approximately $4.2 billion. A 2026 systematic review of 22 economic evaluations found that estimates depended on perspective, time horizon, and single-eye modeling.

Manufacturer market-size statements: wet AMD and DME

“Wet AMD and DME represent a combined $15B+ global market opportunity and >80% of the total branded retinal market” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“Modest improvements in durability and disease control are rewarded by the market” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)

Manufacturer statements on pharmacoeconomic evidence and market estimates

“In order to secure coverage and reimbursement for our products, we may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of the product, in addition to the costly studies required to obtain FDA or other comparable regulatory approvals.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“Even if we conduct pharmacoeconomic studies, our products may not be considered medically necessary or cost-effective by payors.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“Although we believe wet AMD is a common condition and a leading cause of vision loss for people age 50 and older, our estimates of the potential market opportunity for DURAVYU may be incorrect.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)

LUGANO phase 3: treatment burden and supplemental injections as model inputs

“42% reduction in treatment burden, achieving superiority versus on-label aflibercept (nominal p-value<0.0001) compared to a maximum possible reduction of 60%” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“This reduction translates to two fewer injections on average in DURAVYU patients versus on-label aflibercept up to Week 56” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“54% of DURAVYU patients were supplement-free up to Week 56” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“primary endpoint not achieved in full dataset, confounded by this asymmetric cohort” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“Topline data from LUCIA, the second pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial in wet AMD, expected in Q4 2026 with potential FDA New Drug Application submission planned for 1H 2027” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)

Medicare Part B spending on comparator anti-VEGF products, 2024

Product (MedPAC label)	Total drug spending, 2024 (billions of dollars)	Number of users, 2024	Average spending per user, 2024 (dollars)	Change in total drug spending, 2023 to 2024 (%)	Change in number of users, 2023 to 2024 (%)
Eylea (includes Eylea and Eylea HD)	“3.0”	“329,500”	“9,200”	“–4”	“–4”
Vabysmo	“1.9”	“173,300”	“11,100”	“48”	“54”
All Part B drugs	“65.5”	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported

Medicare Part B spending by billing code for intravitreal anti-VEGF products, 2024

HCPCS code and product	Total spending, 2024 (dollars)	Total claims, 2024	Total beneficiaries, 2024	Average spending per claim, 2024 (dollars)
J0178 aflibercept 2 mg (Eylea)	“2365369089”	“1233027”	“293280”	“1918.343304”
J0177 aflibercept 8 mg (Eylea HD)	“665780687.8”	“211930”	“66767”	“3141.512234”
J2777 faricimab-svoa (Vabysmo)	“1918151107”	“792936”	“172503”	“2419.049087”
J2778 ranibizumab (Lucentis)	“128919304.6”	“144995”	“33741”	“889.1293118”
Q5128 ranibizumab-eqrn (Cimerli)	“216885671.1”	“169956”	“38028”	“1276.128357”
Q5124 ranibizumab-nuna (Byooviz)	“29305816.68”	“29810”	“6422”	“983.0867722”
J0179 brolucizumab-dbll (Beovu)	“13575490.79”	“6388”	“1552”	“2125.155102”
J2779 ranibizumab via ocular implant (Susvimo)	“2245603.9”	“294”	“195”	“7638.108503”
J9035 bevacizumab (Avastin), all indications	“161538584.4”	“342609”	“98961”	“471.4954492”

Medicare Part B payment limits for comparator anti-VEGF products, July to September 2026

HCPCS code and product	Billing unit	Payment limit per billing unit (dollars)
J0178 aflibercept 2 mg (Eylea)	“1 MG”	“743.605”
Q5147 aflibercept-ayyh (Pavblu)	“1 MG”	“803.255”
J0177 aflibercept 8 mg (Eylea HD)	“1 MG”	“298.683”
J2777 faricimab-svoa (Vabysmo)	“0.1 MG”	“32.381”
J2778 ranibizumab (Lucentis)	“0.1 mg”	“51.090”
Q5128 ranibizumab-eqrn (Cimerli)	“0.1 MG”	“82.528”
Q5124 ranibizumab-nuna (Byooviz)	“0.1 MG”	“240.972”
J0179 brolucizumab-dbll (Beovu)	“1 MG”	“359.713”
J2779 ranibizumab via ocular implant (Susvimo)	“0.1 MG”	“74.795”
J9035 bevacizumab (Avastin)	“10 MG”	“74.823”

Medicare injection volume and reimbursement per injection, 2014 to 2023

“From 2014 to 2023, a total of 36 398 293 intravitreal anti-VEGF injections were administered to Medicare beneficiaries.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“Faricimab demonstrated rapid early uptake after its introduction in 2022 (65 052-556 512 injections).” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“Standardized Medicare reimbursement per injection declined significantly for ranibizumab ($1234.35-$724.74; τ = -1.00; P < 0.001) and aflibercept ($1527.37-$1379.54; τ = -0.82; P = .001), remained stable for brolucizumab, and increased for bevacizumab ($46.76-$300.73; τ = 0.69; P < 0.01).” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)

Sustained-delivery comparator: cost of the ranibizumab port delivery system versus injections

“The mean (SD) number of ranibizumab, aflibercept, and bevacizumab injections to break even with the cost of ranibizumab PDS with 1 refill was 10.8 (1.3), 9.3 (1.1), and 34.5 (4.2), respectively.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“Ranibizumab PDS with fixed 6-month refills over 1 year cost $21 016 ($2102).” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“In scenario analyses, ranibizumab PDS with refills as needed offered cost savings compared with real-world intravitreal ranibizumab or aflibercept use at 5 years but not at 1 year.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“Long term, if less than 4.4 and 3.8 injections are needed per refill, intravitreal ranibizumab and aflibercept is lower cost. Ranibizumab PDS costs more than intravitreal bevacizumab injections throughout scenarios.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)

Sustained-delivery comparator: cost-utility of the ranibizumab port delivery system

“One-year direct PDS ophthalmic costs totaled $21 825 with 2 ranibizumab fills, whereas ranibizumab injection therapy totaled $18 405 with 11.8 injections.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“The 1-year incremental PDS $/QALY versus injections was cost effective at $75 497/QALY. Five-year PDS therapy was not incrementally cost effective at $304 108/QALY, nor was the 12-year therapy at $761 646/QALY.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“Vision gain was the major determinant of participant value gain and was the same for both interventions.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)

Extended-interval comparator: U.S. cost-utility of faricimab versus aflibercept 2 mg

“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)
“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)
“The model was most sensitive to drug acquisition prices and BCVA-state utilities, yet faricimab remained below the WTP threshold across all plausible ranges.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)

Extended-interval comparator: U.S. payer cost inputs for anti-VEGF injection

Cost input	Cost (USD)	Stated source
Faricimab, cost per 6.0 mg dose	“$2089.44”	“CMS Medicare Part B ASP Pricing File (July 2024)”
Aflibercept, cost per 2.0 mg dose	“$1670.798”	“CMS Medicare Part B ASP Pricing File (July 2024)”
Intravitreal injection (CPT 67028)	“$125.28”	“CMS Physician Fee Schedule (PFS), CY2024, national payment amount”
Initial office visit (CPT 99204)	“$226.53”	“CMS Physician Fee Schedule (PFS), CY2024, national payment amount”
Subsequent office visit (CPT 92014)	“$157.64”	“CMS Physician Fee Schedule (PFS), CY2024, national payment amount”
Optical coherence tomography (CPT 92134)	“$54.17”	“CMS Physician Fee Schedule (PFS), CY2024, national payment amount”

Extended-interval comparator: direct and indirect costs of aflibercept 8 mg versus faricimab

“Direct costs were estimated based on modeled mean injection numbers and 2025 wholesale acquisition costs per injection (aflibercept 8 mg: 2677.50 USD; faricimab: 2289.65 USD) plus medical monitoring costs.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“Over a 3-year time horizon, the mean number of injections was lower with aflibercept 8 mg versus faricimab for nAMD (12.25 vs. 14.80 injections) and DME (11.80 vs. 15.65 injections).” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“Total costs (direct and indirect) associated with aflibercept 8 mg were 1978.74 USD lower than faricimab for nAMD and 6032.90 USD lower than faricimab for DME.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)

U.S. payer budget impact model of a new anti-VEGF agent: brolucizumab

“A Microsoft Excel-based budget impact model was developed for different treatment regimens of brolucizumab over a 1-year time frame from a US payer perspective.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“A 1-year BIM utilized a health plan with 1 million hypothetical enrollees.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“The treatment eligibility was based on nAMD prevalence (1.2%)” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“the proportion of the health plan population aged at least 50 years (36.04%), which was derived from the US census data.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“The uptake of anti-VEGF among the eligible population in the base model was assumed to be 80%.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“The maximum increase in expenditure for a hypothetical health plan with 1 million enrollees was associated with the PRN regimen ($824,696), followed by the T&E regimen ($163,101). In contrast, using the manufacturer-recommended and RWE regimens led to an annual saving of $93,068 and $94,170 for the health plan, respectively.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“Payers need to evaluate the cost impact of different treatment regimens of existing and new anti-VEGFs when making formulary decisions in nAMD management.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)

Off-label bevacizumab and biosimilars: effect on Medicare Part B costs

“If an intraocular bevacizumab biosimilar were to be priced at $500, costs to Medicare would increase by $457 million from $3.01 billion to $3.47 billion (15.2% increase).” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“If bevacizumab were $500/dose, switching all patients currently receiving ranibizumab or aflibercept to respective biosimilars would compensate for only 28.8% of the increased cost.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)

Community-level anti-VEGF agent mix and Medicare Part B spending

“From 2013-2023, 5,178 providers billed Part B for 34.5 million anti-VEGF injections.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“Equalizing anti-VEGF mix to that of the highest-poverty quartile would have resulted in approximately $4.2 billion lower spending.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)

Payer coverage policies: bevacizumab-first requirements

“Participants indicated that many or most payers have coverage policies that require the off-label use of bevacizumab first in wet AMD and other ophthalmic conditions, as it is included as a recommended VEGF inhibitor by the American Academy of Ophthalmology AMD preferred practice parameter and is relatively low cost.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)

Systematic review of cost-effectiveness analyses of VEGF inhibitors in wet AMD

“Twenty-two studies met the inclusion criteria.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“Bevacizumab and brolucizumab were frequently reported as cost-effective alternatives, offering comparable or superior visual outcomes at lower costs than ranibizumab or aflibercept.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“Across studies, cost-effectiveness estimates were influenced by model perspective, time horizon, exclusion of adverse events, and single-eye modeling.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)

Break-even pricing framework for anti-VEGF agents with equivalent outcomes

“Break-even prices were defined as unit prices yielding equal discounted per-patient costs versus comparators.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“Cost-neutral first-line use of newer agents required price reductions of 84-98%.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“Key drivers were acquisition price, injection frequency, and monitoring costs.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)

Eleven-year and two-year cost per QALY of anti-VEGF monotherapy, 2018 US dollars

“We employed patient utilities, bilateral outcomes, 2018 U.S. dollars, vision-related mortality, a Medicare fee schedule, and CATT (Comparison of Age-Related Macular Degeneration Treatments) study and VIEW (VEGF Trap-Eye: Investigation of Efficacy and Safety in Wet AMD) trial.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“the 11-year model, bevacizumab, ophthalmic cost perspective, average CUR was cost-effective at $11,033/QALY, ranibizumab was still cost-effective at $79,600/QALY, and aflibercept was intermediate at $44,801/QALY.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“Two-year therapy prevented a 1-month-of-life loss, and revealed bevacizumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept conferred 0.141, 0.141, and 0.164 QALY gains, respectively, with corresponding average CURs of $40,371/QALY, $335,726/QALY, and $168,006/QALY, respectively.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“Importantly, with the 11-year societal cost perspective, the average CURs for all 3 drugs were all cost-effective by any standard.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)

Injection frequency and office visits as cost-utility model drivers

“The cost-utility methodology was similar to that used in other value-based medicine ophthalmic cost-utility analyses using patient utilities, an average national Medicare Fee Schedule, and a 3% annual discount rate for QALY outcomes and costs” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“using 10 injections/year for 11 years and a vision outcome of 20/63-2, the respective 11-year costs for bevacizumab, ranibizumab and aflibercept therapy were $24,213, $200,455 and $101,109” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“The T-E model also resulted in 17 fewer office visits.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“The 11-year QALY loss from adverse events was 0.070 QALY per eye in the bevacizumab and ranibizumab cohorts and 0.035 QALY per eye in the aflibercept cohort receiving fewer intravitreal injections.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)

Per-injection average sales price, Medicare payment and patient cost, October 2022

Drug and dose	Average sales price (dollars)	Medicare payment (dollars)	Patient cost (dollars)
Ranibizumab 0.3 mg	“731.36”	“607.79”	“155.05”
Ranibizumab 0.5 mg	“1218.91”	“1012.96”	“258.41”
Ranibizumab-nuna 0.5 mg	“1163.90”	“967.25”	“178.18”
Ranibizumab-eqrn 0.5 mg	“1400.8”	“1164.12”	“296.97”
Aflibercept 2 mg	“1703.76”	“1415.90”	“361.20”
Bevacizumab 1.25 mg	“84.91”	“70.56”	“18”

Medicare payment methodology and allowable payments per anti-VEGF injection, October 2022

“Medicare and patient payments for ranibizumab 0.3 mg, ranibizumab 0.5 mg, and aflibercept 2 mg were calculated using current Medicare payment policy and average sales price (ASP) for each drug as listed in the Medicare fee schedule for October 2022.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“The Medicare allowable payments for these Part B drugs are currently $775.24 for ranibizumab 0.3 mg, $1292.04 for ranibizumab 0.5 mg, and $1805.99 for aflibercept 2 mg.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“Medicare pays 80% of the ASP plus 6%, subject to a 2% sequestration.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“this analysis does not include faricimab-svoa (Vabysmo; Genentech), another anti-VEGF drug with an ASP of $2154.51 per injection” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)

Biosimilar switching scenarios and break-even biosimilar prices

“If all the current patients receiving ranibizumab 0.5 mg, priced at $1218.91 per injection, were switched to ranibizumab-nuna 0.5 mg, priced at $1163.90 per injection, this would result in a savings of $28.0 million to Medicare and $7.15 million to patients.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“Combined, if all the patients currently receiving ranibizumab 0.5 mg, ranibizumab 0.3 mg, or aflibercept 2 mg were switched to a less expensive biosimilar, the savings would be $132 million to Medicare and $33.6 million to patients.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“Given that ranibizumab and aflibercept maintain the current proportions of cost burden, a ranibizumab 0.3-mg biosimilar would have to have an ASP of $616.80 per injection, a ranibizumab 0.5-mg biosimilar would have to have an ASP of $1027.97 per injection, and an aflibercept biosimilar would have to have an ASP of $1436.88 per injection. These ASPs are a decrease of 15.7% compared with current ranibizumab and aflibercept pricing.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“The market share of each drug was 43.3% for aflibercept, 20.0% for ranibizumab, and 36.4% for bevacizumab.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)

Medicare expenditure and annual cost per treated beneficiary by agent

“From an economic perspective, total Medicare expenditures for anti-VEGF therapy rose from approximately $2.5 billion USD in 2014 to $3.7 billion USD in 2023, despite declining reimbursement per injection for aflibercept and ranibizumab.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“Bevacizumab, despite its widespread use in cost-sensitive settings, contributed minimally to total Medicare expenditures because of its low average cost per dose ($241 USD annually per beneficiary treated for wet age-related macular degeneration in 2022), compared with $8219 USD for aflibercept and $6143 USD for ranibizumab.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)

Injections per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries by agent, 2014 to 2023

“To summarize per-100 000-beneficiary utilization, aflibercept increased from 1864/100 000 to 5997/100 000 beneficiaries (221% rise)” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“Ranibizumab declined overall by 44%, decreasing from 2437/100 000 to 1359/100 000 between 2014 and 2023, with an interim peak of 2591/100 000 in 2019. Faricimab increased from 219/100 000 to 1947/100 000 between 2022 and 2023 (789% rise), whereas brolucizumab declined from 142 to 18 per 100 000 (87% decline).” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)

Billing code attribution behind the apparent rise in bevacizumab reimbursement

“Sensitivity analyses excluding these codes demonstrated that mean reimbursement remained stable at approximately $50 per injection, consistent with historical pricing patterns.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“Thus, the observed increase in reimbursement in later years likely reflects coding attribution and billing structure rather than true changes in drug cost, clinical demand, or therapeutic preference.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)

Scope, model structures and time horizons of published economic evaluations in wet AMD

“Of the 70 full-text articles reviewed, 16 met the inclusion criteria, with 15 focused on wAMD and one covering both wAMD and Diabetic Macular Oedema” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“Sixteen studies published between 2009 and 2023 were identified, with most published between 2014 and 2018.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“Most studies used Markov models to assess health utility, deriving QALY based on changes in visual acuity. Perspectives varied, with healthcare system and societal viewpoints most commonly used, and time horizons typically extended to 10 years or extrapolated to lifetime estimates.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“Notably, 14 of the 16 studies used Markov models, whereas 1 used a decision-tree structure.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)

Cost components included by study perspective in published evaluations

“studies adopting healthcare system or third-party payer perspectives primarily included direct medical costs, such as drug acquisition, administration, monitoring, consultations, hospitalization, and management of treatment-related adverse events.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“In contrast, studies using a societal perspective incorporated a broader range of costs, including nonmedical and indirect costs; however, productivity losses were often excluded because of the older age of the wAMD population.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“TRAE costs were incorporated in 9 studies.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“Despite their clinical and economic relevance, the costs associated with TRAEs were notably excluded from 5 studies, underscoring a critical omission that undermines the comprehensiveness of these analyses.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)

Comparative cost-effectiveness findings by agent across published evaluations

“Five studies comparing bevacizumab and ranibizumab consistently demonstrated the superior cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab among VEGF inhibitors.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“In comparisons with aflibercept, 3 studies concluded that, although aflibercept is more effective, it is not cost-effective.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“Stein et al (2014) identified bevacizumab PRN as the most cost-effective regimen, with a 62% probability of cost-effectiveness in PSA, compared with bevacizumab T&E (20%), ranibizumab PRN (17%), and ranibizumab T&E (1%).” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“The review suggests that ranibizumab demonstrates mixed cost-effectiveness outcomes, being inferior to brolucizumab and bevacizumab but superior to pegaptanib.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)

Methodological limits that affect reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios

“The quality of current CEAs/CUAs remains suboptimal, with only approximately one-third of the articles rated as high quality based on Drummond’s 10-point appraisal system.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“Most studies utilized a 1-eye model rather than a 2-eye or any-affected-eye model, which may bias cost and QALY estimates by overlooking the condition of the nonstudy eye.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“In cases in which therapies demonstrate noninferior efficacy, incremental QALY gains are often negligible. Under such conditions, cost-utility analyses may yield unstable or inflated ICERs because the denominator of the ratio (incremental QALYs) approaches 0.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)