Cost-effectiveness analyses and utility weights
Published cost-effectiveness analyses and health-state utility weights that a model of this product could cite, adapt, or compare against, grouped by how each article relates to the product and its indication. Every value is quoted from the article it cites, and section 3 lists the searches that found the articles.
12 cost-effectiveness analyses and 6 studies reporting utility weights · 14 sources
Overview
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Literature searched | Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, searched October 21, 2026; the queries are listed in section 3. |
| Cost-effectiveness analyses | 12 |
| Studies reporting utility weights | 6 |
Cost-effectiveness analyses
Analyses of Lytenava (bevacizumab-vikg)
No evidence found.
Treatments for the same indication
Monthly and as-needed bevacizumab and ranibizumab in newly diagnosed neovascular age-related macular degeneration, United States: Stein et al. (2014)
Relevance: Compares bevacizumab with ranibizumab, the active comparator in the NORSE TWO and NORSE EIGHT trials, in newly diagnosed neovascular age-related macular degeneration from a United States societal perspective.
“We developed a Markov model to capture the total costs and HRQL for patients with newly diagnosed neovascular AMD under four treatment options: monthly bevacizumab injections, as-needed bevacizumab injections, monthly ranibizumab injections, and as-needed ranibizumab injections.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“A societal perspective was taken to encompass all parties affected by the treatment choice: patients, providers, and payers.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“The model followed a hypothetical cohort of patients aged 80 years (the mean age for neovascular AMD onset) with neovascular AMD (as defined in CATT) over a 20-year time horizon.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“All costs are in 2012 U.S. dollars. Costs and health utilities were discounted at 3% annually.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“Over 20 years, the expected costs for a single patient with newly diagnosed neovascular AMD receiving monthly bevacizumab, as-needed bevacizumab, monthly ranibizumab, and as-needed ranibizumab were $79 771, $65 267, $257 496, and $163 694, and the QALYs for a patient receiving these treatments were 6.66, 6.60, 6.68, and 6.64, respectively.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“The ICER of monthly bevacizumab over as-needed bevacizumab was $242 357/QALY. The ICER of monthly ranibizumab over as-needed bevacizumab was $10 708 377/QALY. As-needed ranibizumab was dominated by monthly bevacizumab because monthly bevacizumab had lower costs and higher QALYs” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
Monthly and as-needed bevacizumab and ranibizumab in newly diagnosed neovascular age-related macular degeneration, United States: Stein et al. (2013)
Relevance: Compares monthly and as-needed bevacizumab regimens with ranibizumab, the active comparator in the NORSE TWO and NORSE EIGHT trials, in newly diagnosed neovascular age-related macular degeneration in the United States.
“Using a Markov model with a 20-year time horizon, we compared the incremental cost-effectiveness of treating a hypothetical cohort of 80-year-old patients with newly diagnosed neovascular macular degeneration using monthly bevacizumab, as-needed bevacizumab, monthly ranibizumab, or as-needed ranibizumab.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“A societal perspective was taken to encompass all parties who may be affected by the treatment choice: patients, providers, and payers.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“All costs are in 2012 US dollars. Costs and health utilities were discounted at 3% per year.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“Over 20 years, the expected costs for a single patient with newly diagnosed neovascular AMD receiving monthly bevacizumab, as-needed bevacizumab, monthly ranibizumab, and as-needed ranibizumab were $79,771, $65,267, $257,496, and $163,694, respectively, and the QALYs for a patient receiving these treatments were 6.66, 6.60, 6.68, and 6.64, respectively.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“Compared with as-needed bevacizumab, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of monthly bevacizumab is $242,357 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY).” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“Monthly ranibizumab gains an additional 0.02 QALYs vs monthly bevacizumab at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of more than $10 million per QALY. As-needed ranibizumab was dominated by monthly bevacizumab.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
Bevacizumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept versus no treatment in neovascular age-related macular degeneration, United States: Brown et al. (2020)
Relevance: Evaluates intravitreal bevacizumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept against observation in neovascular age-related macular degeneration from United States health care sector and societal perspectives, with ranibizumab the active comparator in the NORSE TWO and NORSE EIGHT trials.
“To perform 11- and 2-year health care sector (ophthalmic) and societal cost perspective reference case, cost-utility analyses comparing bevacizumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept monotherapies for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (NVAMD).” (opens the original PubMed page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“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 original PubMed page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“A combined-eye model cost basis was used.” (opens the original PubMed page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“a 3% annual discount rate for QALY outcomes and costs” (opens the original PubMed page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“Bevacizumab and ranibizumab each conferred an 11-year, 1.339 QALY gain versus observation. Aflibercept conferred a 1.380 QALY gain.” (opens the original PubMed page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“The average ophthalmic cost perspective CUR for bevacizumab was $11,033/QALY, $79,600/QALY for ranibizumab, and $44,801/QALY for aflibercept.” (opens the original PubMed page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“Aflibercept conferred greater QALY gain for less cost than ranibizumab but was not cost-effective compared to bevacizumab ($1,151,451/QALY incremental CUR).” (opens the original PubMed page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“The 11-year model ophthalmic cost perspective and societal cost perspective, incremental CURs comparing aflibercept to bevacizumab were both $1,147,273/QALY (Table 7)” (opens the original PubMed page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“Aflibercept was more effective than ranibizumab because it provided greater patient value gain (QALY gain) for less cost than ranibizumab” (opens the original PubMed page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“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 original PubMed page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
Bevacizumab versus ranibizumab in neovascular age-related macular degeneration, United States: Patel et al. (2012)
Relevance: Compares ranibizumab, the active comparator in the NORSE TWO and NORSE EIGHT trials, with bevacizumab in a Markov model of neovascular age-related macular degeneration in the United States.
“A cost-utility analysis using a Markov model was performed to evaluate incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER, $US per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained] between bevacizumab and ranibizumab from a US payer perspective.” (opens the original PubMed page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“A hypothetical cohort of 1000 patients was simulated through the model for 20 years.” (opens the original PubMed page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“The cost-effectiveness ratios (CER) for bevacizumab and ranibizumab were $1405 per QALY and $12,177 per QALY, respectively. The ICER for bevacizumab was dominant compared to ranibizumab.” (opens the original PubMed page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“PSA revealed a 95% probability of bevacizumab being more cost-effective than ranibizumab at a WTP of $50,000 per QALY gained.” (opens the original PubMed page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
Continuous and discontinuous ranibizumab and bevacizumab in neovascular age-related macular degeneration, United Kingdom: Dakin et al. (2014)
Relevance: Compares continuous and discontinuous ranibizumab and bevacizumab regimens in a within-trial analysis of a multicentre randomised controlled trial from a United Kingdom National Health Service perspective.
“To assess the incremental cost and cost-effectiveness of continuous and discontinuous regimens of bevacizumab (Avastin) and ranibizumab (Lucentis) for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) from a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“A within-trial cost-utility analysis with a 2-year time horizon, based on a multicentre factorial, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“Costs are reported in 2011 pounds sterling, accompanied by equivalents in US dollars (exchange rate: $1.57/pound).” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“Costs and QALYs accrued in year 2 were discounted at 3.5% to allow for time preference” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“Ranibizumab was significantly more costly than bevacizumab for both continuous (+£14 989/patient ($23 468); 95% CI £14 522 to £15 456; p<0.001) and discontinuous treatment (+£8498 ($13 305); 95% CI £7700 to £9295; p<0.001), with negligible difference in QALYs. Continuous ranibizumab would only be cost-effective compared with continuous bevacizumab if the NHS were willing to pay £3.5 million ($5.5 million) per additional QALY gained.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“Continuous bevacizumab therefore cost £30 220 ($47 316) per QALY gained versus discontinuous bevacizumab. However, bootstrapping demonstrated that if the NHS is willing to pay £20 000/QALY gained, there is a 37% chance that continuous bevacizumab is cost-effective versus discontinuous bevacizumab.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“Continuous ranibizumab costs £270 217 ($423 074) per QALY gained compared with discontinuous ranibizumab.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
Ranibizumab versus bevacizumab in age-related macular degeneration, United Kingdom: Raftery et al. (2007)
Relevance: Compares ranibizumab with bevacizumab in age-related macular degeneration from a United Kingdom NHS and personal social services perspective.
“A cost effectiveness model was developed to assess the cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) over 10 years.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“We developed a Markov model, based on two previous models,5,6 amended to allow for gains as well as losses in visual acuity. The model had six health states, five defined by visual acuity plus a death state.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“The efficacy of bevacizumab relative to ranibizumab was varied from 0.1 to 0.9. The perspective of the analysis was that of the NHS and personal social services. Both cost and utilities were discounted at an annual rate of 3.5%.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“For predominantly classic AMD, the efficacy of bevacizumab relative to ranibizumab would have to be around 40% for the latter to achieve £30k per QALY, a NICE threshold.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“Only when relative efficacy was reduced to 0.4 did the cost per QALY fall to £31 092. At 0.8 the cost per QALY was well over £100 000.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“Ranibizumab is not cost effective compared to bevacizumab at current prices unless it is at least 2.5 times more efficacious.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
Ranibizumab versus aflibercept and bevacizumab, monthly and as-needed, in neovascular age-related macular degeneration, Colombia: IETS (2016)
Relevance: Compares ranibizumab with aflibercept and bevacizumab regimens, including monthly and as-needed bevacizumab, in neovascular age-related macular degeneration from the perspective of the Colombian General System of Social Security in Health.
Ranibizumab biosimilar treat-and-extend versus ranibizumab, aflibercept, and best supportive care in neovascular age-related macular degeneration, Japan: Yanagi et al. (2023)
Relevance: Evaluates a ranibizumab biosimilar, a class listed in section 2, against reference ranibizumab and aflibercept under treat-and-extend regimens in neovascular age-related macular degeneration in Japan.
“A Markov model was developed to simulate the lifetime transitions of a cohort of treatment-naïve patients with nAMD through health states that were based on the involvement of nAMD (single eye vs. both eyes), the treatment status of the patients, and decimal best-corrected visual acuity.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“The cycle length of the model was 3 months, and a 20-year time horizon was considered to cover the patients’ lifetime” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“The analysis was done from a societal perspective in Japan.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“Health outcomes and costs were discounted at a rate of 2% per year, based on local guidelines” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“When the RBZ BS TAE regimen was compared with other TAE regimens and BSC, a patient on RBZ BS TAE accumulated 8.081 QALYs compared to 8.067, 8.072, and 7.772 QALYs on AFL TAE, AFL to RBZ BS TAE, and BSC, respectively” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“RBZ BS TAE was associated with a lower total cost of JPY 1,215,458 relative to its brand drug, Lucentis® (RBZ TAE).” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“The difference in total cost for RBZ BS TAE compared to other active comparators and BSC was JPY − 2,075,183, JPY − 291,822, and JPY − 3,539,402 for AFL TAE, AFL to RBZ BS TAE, and BSC, respectively” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“Therefore, treatment with RBZ BS TAE (intervention) was dominant over other anti-VEGF treatments as well as BSC by slightly higher or equal incremental QALYs at a lower total cost.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
Aflibercept 2 mg every 8 weeks versus monthly and as-needed ranibizumab in wet age-related macular degeneration, United States: Hernandez et al. (2018)
Relevance: Compares aflibercept at an extended dosing interval after monthly loading doses with monthly and as-needed ranibizumab, the active comparator in the NORSE trials, over a lifetime horizon from a United States payer perspective.
“To assess the cost-effectiveness of intravitreal aflibercept injection 2 mg every 8 weeks after 3 initial monthly doses (IAI 2q8) versus ranibizumab 0.5 mg monthly (Rq4) and pro re nata (PRN) in the treatment of patients with wAMD from a U.S. payer perspective.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“A Markov cohort model was developed to estimate the lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs of treating patients with wAMD with IAI 2q8, Rq4, and ranibizumab PRN.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“Utilities and costs (in 2016 U.S. dollars) were from published literature. Health outcomes and costs were discounted at an annual rate of 3%.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“Over a lifetime, IAI 2q8 provided equal health benefits with Rq4 (5.44 QALYs) at a lower total cost ($33,745 vs. $48,031) as a result of fewer injections.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“IAI 2q8 yielded greater QALYs compared with ranibizumab PRN (5.440 vs. 5.404) at a higher cost ($33,745 vs. $33,652), with an incremental cost per QALY gained of $2,583 (i.e., IAI 2q8 was cost-effective vs. ranibizumab PRN).” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“A treatment was deemed cost-effective at ICERs below a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $50,000 per QALY gained.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“The PSA results indicate that compared with Rq4, IAI 2q8 was cost-effective in all simulations, being dominant in 46% of them. Compared with ranibizumab PRN, IAI 2q8 was cost-effective in 98% of all simulations” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
The same disease in other populations or settings
No evidence found.
Related diseases and analogous treatments
Aflibercept, ranibizumab, and bevacizumab in diabetic macular edema, United States: Ross et al. (2016)
Relevance: Compares aflibercept, bevacizumab, and ranibizumab for diabetic macular edema using results of the Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network comparative effectiveness trial in the United States.
“Post-hoc analysis of efficacy, safety, and resource utilization data at 1 one year follow-up from a Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network randomized clinical trial.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“One-year trial data were used to calculate cost-effectiveness over one year for the 3 anti-VEGF agents; mathematical modeling then was used to project 10-year cost-effectiveness results.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“Each therapy’s incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated, defined as the ratio of its incremental cost (in 2015 USD) to its incremental benefit (in QALYs) compared to the next-best therapy. Future outcomes were discounted at an annual rate of 3% to reflect their present value.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“For all participants, over one year, the ICERs of aflibercept and ranibizumab compared with bevacizumab were $1,110,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and $1,730,000/QALY. Over 10 years, they were $349,000/QALY and $603,000/QALY, respectively. Compared with ranibizumab, aflibercept’s ICER was $648,000/QALY at one year and $203,000/QALY at ten years.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“For the subgroup with worse baseline vision, the 10-year ICERs of aflibercept and ranibizumab compared with bevacizumab were $287,000/QALY and $817,000/QALY, respectively.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“In eyes with decreased vision from DME, treatment costs of aflibercept and ranibizumab would need to decline by 69% and 80%, respectively, to reach a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100,000/QALY compared with bevacizumab over a 10-year horizon” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
Aflibercept monotherapy versus bevacizumab first with switching to aflibercept in diabetic macular edema, United States: Hutton et al. (2023)
Relevance: Compares aflibercept monotherapy with bevacizumab first followed by aflibercept if needed for diabetic macular edema in a secondary analysis of a United States randomized clinical trial using Medicare unit costs.
“This economic evaluation was a preplanned secondary analysis of a US randomized clinical trial of participants aged 18 years or older with center-involved DME and best-corrected visual acuity of 20/50 to 20/320 enrolled from December 15, 2017, through November 25, 2019.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“Between February and July 2022, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) over 2 years was assessed. Efficacy and resource utilization data from the randomized clinical trial were used with health utility mapping from the literature and Medicare unit costs.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“Costs were measured in 2022 dollars, and costs in year 2 were discounted by 3% as is standard in cost-effectiveness analyses to account for the time value of money.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“Over 2 years, the cost of aflibercept monotherapy was $26 504 (95% CI, $24 796-$28 212) vs $13 929 (95% CI, $11 984-$15 874) for the bevacizumab-first group, a difference of $12 575 (95% CI, $9987-$15 163).” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“The aflibercept monotherapy group gained 0.015 (95% CI, −0.011 to 0.041) QALYs using the better-seeing eye and had an ICER of $837 077 per QALY gained compared with the bevacizumab-first group.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“Aflibercept could be cost-effective with an ICER of $100 000 per QALY if the price per dose were $305 or less or the price of bevacizumab was $1307 per dose or more.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
Bevacizumab versus aflibercept in macular edema due to central or hemiretinal vein occlusion, United States: Kymes et al. (2023)
Relevance: Compares bevacizumab with aflibercept for macular edema from central or hemiretinal vein occlusion in a microsimulation cohort with characteristics similar to SCORE2 participants, from a United States health sector perspective.
“This economic evaluation study used a microsimulation cohort of patients with clinical and demographic characteristics similar to those of SCORE2 participants and a Markov process.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“The model was developed taking a health sector perspective as recommended by the Second Panel on Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“We simulated 1 year of care for the cohort of patients.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“Participants who initiated therapy with bevacizumab accrued a cost of $3213 through 1 year of treatment and improved their QALYs from 0.845 to 0.871 (a gain of 0.026 QALYs).” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“In contrast, patients who initiated aflibercept accrued a 12-month cost of $21 340 (an increase of $18 127 vs bevacizumab) and improved their QALYs from 0.845 to 0.865 (a gain of 0.020 QALYs). As bevacizumab is both less expensive and more effective than aflibercept in terms of QALYs, we consider bevacizumab dominant compared with aflibercept” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“At current price levels, aflibercept would be considered the preferred cost-effective option only if treatment restored the patient to nearly perfect health.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
Utility weights
Utility weights from analyses of Lytenava (bevacizumab-vikg)
No evidence found.
Utility weights for the same indication
Utility weights by best-corrected visual acuity, neovascular age-related macular degeneration: Stein et al. (2014)
Relevance: Utilities by visual acuity range used in a U.S. model comparing bevacizumab and ranibizumab in newly diagnosed neovascular age-related macular degeneration.
“We incorporated utility scores for each BCVA level as captured by Brown and colleagues” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
Utility weights by best-corrected visual acuity and for long-term adverse events, neovascular age-related macular degeneration: Stein et al. (2013)
Relevance: Utilities by best-corrected visual acuity range, blindness from endophthalmitis, stroke, and myocardial infarction used in a U.S. model comparing bevacizumab and ranibizumab; endophthalmitis and thromboembolic events are warnings in section 2.
“We incorporated utility scores for each level of BCVA as captured by Brown and colleagues” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
Utility weights by visual acuity, neovascular age-related macular degeneration: Patel et al. (2012)
Relevance: Utilities by visual acuity, taken from a published study, used in a United States model comparing bevacizumab and ranibizumab.
Access: Not open access
Not quoted: The utility weights are reported in the full text, which is closed access.
Utility weights by visual acuity, neovascular age-related macular degeneration: Brown et al. (2024)
Relevance: Time tradeoff utilities by visual acuity, adjusted for conversion of the fellow eye, used in a United States model of neovascular age-related macular degeneration.
Access: Not open access
Not quoted: The utility weights are reported in the full text, which is closed access.
“Ophthalmic patient, time tradeoff utilities, direct medical and societal cost perspectives, 12-year, 1-year, and 5-year timelines, United States 2022 real dollars, and a 3% annual discount rate were employed.” (opens the original PubMed page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“Utilities were adjusted for nAMD conversion in fellow eyes during the 12-year, mean participant life expectancy.” (opens the original PubMed page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
Utility weights by best-corrected visual acuity in the better-seeing eye, wet age-related macular degeneration: Hernandez et al. (2018)
Relevance: Utilities by best-corrected visual acuity letter score in the better-seeing eye used in a U.S. model of wet age-related macular degeneration.
“Utilities were assigned based on the BCVA of the BSE.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
Disutilities for adverse events of intravitreal treatment, neovascular age-related macular degeneration: Ferrante et al. (2022)
Relevance: Disutilities for cataract, endophthalmitis, intraocular inflammation, and retinal detachment as adverse events of intravitreal treatment in neovascular age-related macular degeneration.
“This effect was quantified through a temporary disutility (the coefficient is subtracted from the utility of the state of health).” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“Each AE-related disutility was applied for a certain duration.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
Utility weights for the same disease in other populations or settings
No evidence found.
Utility weights for related diseases and analogous treatments
No evidence found.
Search strategy
| Dataset | Query | Results |
|---|---|---|
| Ratios | "macular degeneration" | 198 |
| Ratios | "neovascular" OR "wet AMD" OR "choroidal neovascularization" | 140 |
| Ratios | aflibercept | 134 |
| Ratios | faricimab | 31 |
| Ratios | ranibizumab | 221 |
| Ratios | bevacizumab AND ("macular" OR "intravitreal") | 116 |
| Ratios | brolucizumab | 32 |
| Ratios | voretigene OR "inherited retinal" | 11 |
| Ratios | "gene therapy" AND ("retinal" OR "ocular" OR "eye") | 5 |
| Ratios | fluocinolone OR "dexamethasone implant" OR "dexamethasone intravitreal" OR Ozurdex OR Iluvien | 10 |
| Ratios | "port delivery" | 3 |
| Ratios | pegaptanib OR verteporfin | 61 |
| Ratios | biosimilar AND (ranibizumab OR bevacizumab OR aflibercept) | 50 |
| Methods | Lytenava OR "ONS-5010" OR "bevacizumab-vikg" | 0 |
| Weights | "macular degeneration" | 297 |
| Weights | "neovascular" OR "wet AMD" OR "nAMD" | 174 |
| Weights | endophthalmitis OR "intraocular inflammation" OR "retinal detachment" | 50 |
| Weights | "intravitreal injection" OR "injection burden" | 31 |
| Ratios | "sustained release" OR "sustained-release" OR "intravitreal implant" OR "drug delivery" | 56 |