Cost-effectiveness of fluocinolone acetonide implant (ILUVIEN(R)) in UK patients with chronic diabetic macular oedema considered insufficiently responsive to available therapies

Cost-effectiveness of fluocinolone acetonide implant (ILUVIEN(R)) in UK patients with chronic diabetic macular oedema considered insufficiently responsive to available therapies

2019 BMC Health Serv Res

Pochopien, M. | Beiderbeck, A. | McEwan, P. | Zur, R. | Toumi, M. | Aballea, S. | Volume: 19, Issue: 1, Pages: 22, Cost-effectiveness, Diabetic macular oedema, Fluocinolone acetonide implant, Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, Treatment cost,

BACKGROUND: Diabetic macular oedema (DMO) may lead to visual loss and blindness. Several pharmacological treatments are available on the National Health Service (NHS) to United Kingdom patients affected by this condition, including intravitreal vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors (anti-VEGFs) and two types of intravitreal steroid implants, releasing dexamethasone or fluocinolone acetonide (FAc). This study aimed to assess the value for money (cost-effectiveness) of the FAc 0.2 mug/day implant (ILUVIEN(R)) in patients with chronic DMO considered insufficiently responsive to other therapies. METHODS: We developed a Markov model with a 15-year time horizon to estimate the impact of changes in best-corrected visual acuity in DMO patients on costs and quality-adjusted life years. The model considered both eyes, designated as the “study eye”, defined at model entry as phakic with an ongoing cataract formation or pseudophakic, and the “fellow eye”. The model compared the FAc 0.2 mug/day implant with a 700 mug dexamethasone implant (pseudophakic patients only) or with usual care, defined as a mixture of laser photocoagulation and anti-VEGFs (phakic and pseudophakic patients). Costs were estimated from the perspective of the NHS and Personal Social Services; full NHS prices were used for drugs. RESULTS: In patients who were pseudophakic at baseline, at 36 months, the FAc implant provided an additional gain of 4.01 and 3.64 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters compared with usual care and the dexamethasone implant, respectively. Over the 15-year time horizon, this translated into 0.185 additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at an extra cost of pound3066 compared with usual care, and 0.126 additional QALYs at an extra cost of pound1777 compared with dexamethasone. Thus, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were pound16,609 and pound14,070 per QALY gained vs. usual care and dexamethasone, respectively. In patients who were phakic at baseline, the FAc 0.2 mug/day implant provided an additional gain of 2.96 ETDRS letters at 36 months compared with usual care, which, over 15 years, corresponded to 0.11 additional QALYs at an extra cost of pound3170, resulting in an ICER of pound28,751 per QALY gained. CONCLUSION: The FAc 0.2 mug/day implant provided good value for money compared with other established treatments, especially in pseudophakic patients.

https://www.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3804-4