Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of aflibercept versus conbercept for the treatment of wet age-related macular degeneration
10.12173/j.issn.1008-049X.202403004
- VernacularTitle:阿柏西普对比康柏西普治疗湿性年龄相关性黄斑变性药物经济学评价
- Author:
Dan LIU
1
;
Bochao ZHANG
;
Jing ZHANG
;
Juan WANG
;
Yi YUAN
;
Lin GUI
;
Li CHEN
Author Information
1. 攀枝花市中西医结合医院眼科(四川攀枝花 617000)
- Keywords:
Wet age-related macular degeneration;
Aflibercept;
Conbercept;
Markov model;
Pharmacoeconomic analysis
- From:
China Pharmacist
2024;27(4):655-662
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To compare the cost and utility of aflibercept and conbercept for the treatment of wet age-related macular degeneration(wetAMD),in order to provide a reference for the selection of treatment regimens from the perspective of pharmacoeconomics.Methods The incremental cost-utility ratio(ICUR)was obtained by using Markov model to simulate the survival of the two treatment regimens over the 5-year period,calculating costs and health outputs separately.Univariate sensitivity analysis was used to determine the impact of the parameter on ICUR,and probability sensitivity analysis was used to determine the influence of the uncertainty of each model parameter on the research results.One times the 2022 gross domestic product(GDP)per capita of China was used as the willingness-to-pay threshold(WTP)to judge its economy.Results Over the simulation period,the compazine regimen was significantly economical against the aflibercept regimen,with an ICUR of-1 528 840 per quality-adjusted life year(QALY),which was lower than the WTP.Univariate sensitivity analysis showed that the transition probability between mild and moderate visual status between the two regimens and the number of aflibercept injections per year were significant influencing factors of ICUR.Probabilistic sensitivity analysis pointed to a significant cost-utility advantage for conbercept at a WTP of one times GDP(probability of 65.9％),which was a more robust result.Conclusion For the treatment of wetAMD,conbercept has a cost-utility advantage compared with aflibercept.
