Mapping From Visual Acuity to EQ-5D, EQ-5D With Vision Bolt-On, and VFQ-UI in Patients With Macular Edema in the LEAVO Trial

Development and Valuation of a Preference-Weighted Measure in Age-Related Macular Degeneration From the Vision Impairment in Low Luminance Questionnaire: A MACUSTAR Report

OBJECTIVES

This study generates VILL-UI (Vision Impairment in Low Luminance - Utility Index), a preference-weighted measure (PWM) derived from the VILL-33 measure for use in patients with age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and valued to generate United Kingdom and German preference weights.

METHODS

A PWM consists of a classification system to describe health and utility values for every state described by the classification. The classification was derived using existing data collected as part of the MACUSTAR study, a low-interventional study on AMD, conducted at 20 clinical sites across Europe. Items were selected using psychometric and Rasch analyses, published criteria around PWM suitability, alongside instrument developer views and concept elicitation work that informed VILL-33 development. An online discrete choice experiment (DCE) with duration of the health state was conducted with the United Kingdom and German public. Responses were modeled to generate utility values for all possible health states.

RESULTS

The classification system has 5 items across the 3 domains of VILL-33: reading and accessing information, mobility and safety, and emotional well-being. The DCE samples (United Kingdom: n = 1004, Germany: n = 1008) are broadly representative and demonstrate good understanding of the tasks. The final DCE analyses produce logically consistent and significant coefficients.

CONCLUSIONS

This study enables responses to VILL-33 to be directly used to inform economic evaluation in AMD. The elicitation of preferences from both United Kingdom and Germany enables greater application of VILL-UI for economic evaluation throughout Europe. VILL-UI fills a gap in AMD in which generic preference-weighted measures typically lack sensitivity.

Real-world evidence in the use of Bevacizumab in age-related macular degeneration (ArMD): a scoping review

PURPOSE

Pharmacological treatments for age-related macular degeneration (ArMD) include anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapies. Bevacizumab is used off-label, as it has no indication for ArMD. This study aims to identify and describe literature on real-world evidence of bevacizumab (originator or biosimilars) use in ArMD.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted in Medline, CINAHL and Embase databases. Studies published in English after September 2017, conducted in USA, including adults (≥ 18 years old) with ArMD who received treatment with bevacizumab for ArMD were included. The review was further limited to peer-reviewed observational studies that quantitatively analyze either clinical or patient-reported outcomes among patients treated with bevacizumab for ArMD.

RESULTS

The search strategy retrieved 543 studies. After title and abstract screening, a total of 142 studies were selected for full-text review leading to a total of 12 studies qualifying for data charting. All were retrospective studies. Five (41.6%) of the studies had less than 500 eyes included in the analysis, and the rest had over a thousand eyes. All except one study reported clinical outcomes (visual acuity was the main outcome in 8 (66.6%) studies). There were 3 (25%) studies reporting adverse events of bevacizumab intravitreal injections. None of the studies specified using biosimilars for bevacizumab and none mentioned patient-reported outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The lack of studies aiming to study the patient-reported outcomes as well as the use of biosimilars of bevacizumab in ArMD makes this field a potential for future research. The different exposures and times to follow-up make it difficult to compare results among the selected studies.

Mapping Studies to Estimate Health-State Utilities From Nonpreference-Based Outcome Measures: A Systematic Review on How Repeated Measurements are Taken Into Account

OBJECTIVES

Mapping algorithms are developed using data sets containing patient responses to a preference-based questionnaire and another health-related quality-of-life questionnaire. When data sets include repeated measurements from the same individuals over time, the assumption of observations' independence, required by standard models, is violated, and standard errors are underestimated. This review aimed to identify how studies deal with methodological challenges of repeated measurements, provide an overview of practice to date, and potential implications for future work.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature search of MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, specialized databases, and previous systematic reviews. A data template was used to extract, among others, start and target instruments if the data set(s) used for estimation and validation had repeated measurements per patient, used regression techniques, and which (if any) adjustments were made for repeated measurements.

RESULTS

We identified 278 publications developing at least 1 mapping algorithm. Of the 278 publications, 121 used a data set with repeated measurements, among which 92 used multiple time points for estimation, and 39 selected specific time points to have 1 observation per participant. A total of 36 studies did not account for repeated measurements. An adjustment was conducted using cluster-robust standard errors (21), random-effects models (30), generalized estimating equations (7), and other methods (7).

CONCLUSIONS

The inconsistent use of methods to account for interdependent observations in the literature indicates that mapping guidelines should include recommendations on how to deal with repeated measurements, and journals should update their guidelines accordingly.

Mapping the Oxford Shoulder Score onto the EQ-5D utility index

PURPOSE

In order to enable cost-utility analysis of shoulder pain conditions and treatments, this study aimed to develop and evaluate mapping algorithms to estimate the EQ-5D health index from the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) when health outcomes are only assessed with the OSS.

METHODS

5437 paired OSS and EQ-5D questionnaire responses from four national multicentre randomised controlled trials investigating different shoulder pathologies and treatments were split into training and testing samples. Separate EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L analyses were undertaken. Transfer to utility (TTU) regression (univariate linear, polynomial, spline, multivariable linear, two-part logistic-linear, tobit and adjusted limited dependent variable mixture models) and response mapping (ordered logistic regression and seemingly unrelated regression (SUR)) models were developed on the training sample. These were internally validated, and their performance evaluated on the testing sample. Model performance was evaluated over 100-fold repeated training-testing sample splits.

RESULTS

For the EQ-5D-3L analysis, the multivariable linear and splines models had the lowest mean square error (MSE) of 0.0415. The SUR model had the lowest mean absolute error (MAE) of 0.136. Model performance was greatest in the mid-range and best health states, and lowest in poor health states. For the EQ-5D-5L analyses, the multivariable linear and splines models had the lowest MSE (0.0241-0.0278) while the SUR models had the lowest MAE (0.105-0.113).

CONCLUSION

The developed models now allow accurate estimation of the EQ-5D health index when only the OSS responses are available as a measure of patient-reported health outcome.

Psychometric assessment of EQ-5D-5L and ReQoL measures in patients with anxiety and depression: construct validity and responsiveness

PURPOSE

Generic health measures have been questioned for quantifying mental-health-related outcomes. In patients with anxiety and/or depression, our aim is to assess the psychometric properties of the preference-based EQ-5D-5L (generic health) and ReQoL-UI (recovery-focussed quality of life) for economic evaluation against the PHQ-9 (depression) and GAD-7 (anxiety). EQ-5D-5L anxiety/depression item and ReQoL-10 are also assessed.

METHODS

A 2:1 (intervention: control) randomised controlled trial collected measures at baseline and 8 weeks post baseline; in the intervention arm, data were also collected 3, 6, 9, and 12-months post baseline. EQ-5D-5L preference-based scores were obtained from the value set for England (VSE) and 'cross-walked' EQ-5D-3L United Kingdom (UK) value set scores. ReQoL-UI preference-based scores were obtained from its UK value set as applied to seven ReQoL-10 items. EQ-5D-5L and ReQoL measures' construct validity and responsiveness were assessed compared against PHQ-9 and GAD-7 scores and group cut-offs.

RESULTS

361 people were randomised to intervention (241) or control (120). ReQoL-UI/-10 had better construct validity with depression severity than the EQ-5D-5L (VSE/cross-walk scores), which had relatively better construct validity with anxiety severity than the ReQoL-UI/-10. Across all intervention-arm time-points relative to baseline, responsiveness was generally better for EQ-5D-5L (VSE in particular) than ReQoL-UI, but worse than ReQoL-10.

CONCLUSION

There is insufficient evidence to recommend the ReQoL-UI over EQ-5D-5L for economic evaluations to capture anxiety severity. However, there may be rationale for recommending the ReQoL-UI over the EQ-5D-5L to capture depression severity given its better construct validity, albeit poorer responsiveness, and if recovery-focussed quality of life relative to condition-specific symptomology is the construct of interest.

Cost Effectiveness of Ranibizumab vs Aflibercept vs Bevacizumab for the Treatment of Macular Oedema Due to Central Retinal Vein Occlusion: The LEAVO Study

BACKGROUND

We aimed to assess the cost effectiveness of intravitreal ranibizumab (Lucentis), aflibercept (Eylea) and bevacizumab (Avastin) for the treatment of macular oedema due to central retinal vein occlusion.

METHODS

We calculated costs and quality-adjusted life-years from the UK National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective. We performed a within-trial analysis using the efficacy, safety, resource use and health utility data from a randomised controlled trial (LEAVO) over 100 weeks. We built a discrete event simulation to model long-term outcomes. We estimated utilities using the Visual-Functioning Questionnaire-Utility Index, EQ-5D and EQ-5D with an additional vision question. We used standard UK costs sources for 2018/19 and a cost of £28 per bevacizumab injection. We discounted costs and quality-adjusted life-years at 3.5% annually.

RESULTS

Bevacizumab was the least costly intervention followed by ranibizumab and aflibercept in both the within-trial analysis (bevacizumab: £6292, ranibizumab: £13,014, aflibercept: £14,328) and long-term model (bevacizumab: £18,353, ranibizumab: £30,226, aflibercept: £35,026). Although LEAVO did not demonstrate bevacizumab to be non-inferior for the visual acuity primary outcome, the three interventions generated similar quality-adjusted life-years in both analyses. Bevacizumab was always the most cost-effective intervention at a threshold of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, even using the list price of £243 per injection.

CONCLUSIONS

Wider adoption of bevacizumab for the treatment of macular oedema due to central retinal vein occlusion could result in substantial savings to healthcare systems and deliver similar health-related quality of life. However, patients, funders and ophthalmologists should be fully aware that LEAVO could not demonstrate that bevacizumab is non-inferior to the licensed agents.

Complex interventions to implement a diabetic retinopathy care pathway in the public health system in Kerala: the Nayanamritham study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Using a type 2 hybrid effectiveness-implementation design, we aim to pilot a diabetic retinopathy (DR) care pathway in the public health system in Kerala to understand how it can be scaled up to and sustained in the whole state.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Currently, there is no systematic DR screening programme in Kerala. Our intervention is a teleophthalmology pathway for people with diabetes in the non-communicable disease registers in 16 family health centres. The planned implementation strategy of the pathway will be developed based on the discrete Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change taxonomy. We will use both quantitative data from a cross-sectional study and qualitative data obtained from structured interviews, surveys and group discussions with stakeholders to report the effectiveness of the DR care pathway and evaluation of the implementation strategy.We will use logistic regression models to assess crude associations DR and sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy and fractional polynomials to account for the form of continuous covariates to predict uptake of DR screening. The primary effectiveness outcome is the proportion of patients in the non-communicable disease register with diabetes screened for DR over 12 months. Other outcomes include cost-effectiveness, safety, efficiency, patient satisfaction, timeliness and equity. The outcomes of evaluation of the implementation strategies include acceptability, feasibility, adoption, appropriateness, fidelity, penetration, costs and sustainability. Addition of more family health centres during the staggered initial phase of the programme will be considered as a sign of acceptability and feasibility. In the long term, the state-wide adoption of the DR care pathway will be considered as a successful outcome of the Nayanamritham study.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study was approved by Indian Medical Research Council (2018-0551) dated 13 March 2019. Study findings will be disseminated through scientific publications and the report will inform adoption of the DR care pathway by Kerala state in future.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN28942696.

Intravitreal ranibizumab versus aflibercept versus bevacizumab for macular oedema due to central retinal vein occlusion: the LEAVO non-inferiority three-arm RCT

BACKGROUND

Licensed ranibizumab (0.5 mg/0.05 ml Lucentis®; Novartis International AG, Basel, Switzerland) and aflibercept (2 mg/0.05 ml Eylea®; Bayer AG, Leverkusen, Germany) and unlicensed bevacizumab (1.25 mg/0.05 ml Avastin®; F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, Basel, Switzerland) are used to treat macula oedema due to central retinal vein occlusion, but their relative clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and impact on the UK NHS and Personal Social Services have never been directly compared over the typical disease treatment period.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor agents for the management of macula oedema due to central retinal vein occlusion.

DESIGN

This was a three-arm, double-masked, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial.

SETTING

The trial was set in 44 UK NHS ophthalmology departments, between 2014 and 2018.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 463 patients with visual impairment due to macula oedema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion were included in the trial.

INTERVENTIONS

The participants were treated with repeated intravitreal injections of ranibizumab (n = 155), aflibercept (n = 154) or bevacizumab (n = 154).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was an increase in the best corrected visual acuity letter score from baseline to 100 weeks in the trial eye. The null hypothesis that aflibercept and bevacizumab are each inferior to ranibizumab was tested with a non-inferiority margin of -5 visual acuity letters over 100 weeks. Secondary outcomes included additional visual acuity, and imaging outcomes, Visual Function Questionnaire-25, EuroQol-5 Dimensions with and without a vision bolt-on, and drug side effects. Cost-effectiveness was estimated using treatment costs and Visual Function Questionnaire-Utility Index to measure quality-adjusted life-years.

RESULTS

The adjusted mean changes at 100 weeks in the best corrected visual acuity letter scores were as follows - ranibizumab, 12.5 letters (standard deviation 21.1 letters); aflibercept, 15.1 letters (standard deviation 18.7 letters); and bevacizumab, 9.8 letters (standard deviation 21.4 letters). Aflibercept was non-inferior to ranibizumab in the intention-to-treat population (adjusted mean best corrected visual acuity difference 2.23 letters, 95% confidence interval -2.17 to 6.63 letters; p = 0.0006), but not superior. The study was unable to demonstrate that bevacizumab was non-inferior to ranibizumab in the intention-to-treat population (adjusted mean best corrected visual acuity difference -1.73 letters, 95% confidence interval -6.12 to 2.67 letters; p = 0.071). A post hoc analysis was unable to demonstrate that bevacizumab was non-inferior to aflibercept in the intention-to-treat population (adjusted mean best corrected visual acuity difference was -3.96 letters, 95% confidence interval -8.34 to 0.42 letters; p = 0.32). All per-protocol population results were the same. Fewer injections were required with aflibercept (10.0) than with ranibizumab (11.8) (difference in means -1.8, 95% confidence interval -2.9 to -0.8). A post hoc analysis showed that more bevacizumab than aflibercept injections were required (difference in means 1.6, 95% confidence interval 0.5 to 2.7). There were no new safety concerns. The model- and trial-based cost-effectiveness analyses estimated that bevacizumab was the most cost-effective treatment at a threshold of £20,000-30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year.

LIMITATIONS

The comparison of aflibercept and bevacizumab was a post hoc analysis.

CONCLUSION

The study showed aflibercept to be non-inferior to ranibizumab. However, the possibility that bevacizumab is worse than ranibizumab and aflibercept by 5 visual acuity letters cannot be ruled out. Bevacizumab is an economically attractive treatment alternative and would lead to substantial cost savings to the NHS and other health-care systems. However, uncertainty about its relative effectiveness should be discussed comprehensively with patients, their representatives and funders before treatment is considered.

FUTURE WORK

To obtain extensive patient feedback and discuss with all stakeholders future bevacizumab NHS use.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN13623634.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 38. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Methodological Challenges in the Economic Evaluation of a Gene Therapy for RPE65-Mediated Inherited Retinal Disease: The Value of Vision

The emergence of gene therapies challenge health economists to evaluate interventions that are often provided to a small patient population with a specific gene mutation in a single dose with high upfront costs and uncertain long-term benefits. The objective of this study was to illustrate the methodological challenges of evaluating gene therapies and their implications by discussing four economic evaluations of voretigene neparvovec (VN) for the treatment of RPE65-mediated inherited retinal disease. The checklist for economic evaluations of gene therapies of Drummond et al. was applied to the economic evaluations of VN performed by US Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, two country adaptations of the company model in the UK and the Netherlands, and another US publication. The main differences in methodological choices and their impact on cost-effectiveness results were assessed and further explored with sensitivity analyses using the Dutch model. To enable comparison between the economic evaluations, costs were converted to US dollars. Different methodological choices were made in the economic evaluations of VN resulting in large differences in the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio varying from US$79,618 to US$643,813 per QALY. The chosen duration of treatment effect, source of utility values, discount rate and model structure had the largest impact on the cost-effectiveness. This study underlines the findings from Drummond et al. that standard methods can be used to evaluate gene therapies. However, given uncertainty about (particularly long-term) outcomes of gene therapies, guidance is required on the acceptable extrapolation of treatment effect of gene therapies and on how to handle the uncertainty around this extrapolation in scenario and sensitivity analyses to aid health technology assessment research and align submissions of future gene therapies.