↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab versus aflibercept in the treatment of visual impairment due to diabetic macular edema: a UK healthcare perspective

Overview of attention for article published in ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
3 policy sources
twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 Mendeley
Title
Cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab versus aflibercept in the treatment of visual impairment due to diabetic macular edema: a UK healthcare perspective
Published in
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR, May 2015
DOI 10.2147/ceor.s82556
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephane A Régnier, William Malcolm, Jennifer Haig, Weiguang Xue

Abstract

Ranibizumab and aflibercept are alternative anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents approved for the treatment of visual impairment (VI) due to diabetic macular edema (DME). To estimate, from a UK healthcare perspective, the cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab 0.5 mg pro re nata (PRN) and ranibizumab 0.5 mg treat and extend (T&E) compared with aflibercept 2 mg every 8 weeks after five initial monthly doses (2q8) in the treatment of VI due to DME. A Markov model previously reviewed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence was used to simulate the long-term outcomes and costs of treating DME. Health states were defined by increments of ten letters in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), with a 3-month cycle length. Patients could gain (or lose) a maximum of two health states between cycles. A 3-year treatment time frame and a lifetime horizon were used. Future costs and health outcomes were discounted at 3.5% per annum. Patient baseline characteristics and the efficacy of ranibizumab PRN were derived using data from the RESTORE study. The relative efficacies of ranibizumab PRN, ranibizumab T&E, and aflibercept were assessed with a network meta-analysis. Different utilities were assigned based on BCVA and whether the treated eye was the better- or the worse-seeing eye. Sensitivity analyses tested the robustness of the model. Lifetime costs per patient of treating DME were £20,019 for ranibizumab PRN, £22,930 for ranibizumab T&E, and £25,859 for aflibercept 2q8. Ranibizumab was dominant over aflibercept, with an incremental gain of 0.05 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and cost savings of £5,841 (PRN) and £2,930 (T&E) compared with aflibercept. Ranibizumab PRN and ranibizumab T&E had 79% and 67% probability, respectively, of being cost-effective relative to aflibercept at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000/QALY. When assuming the higher end of PRN injection frequency (15.9 over 3 years), the cost savings associated with ranibizumab were £3,969. From a UK healthcare perspective, ranibizumab provides greater health gains with lower overall costs than aflibercept in patients with VI due to DME.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Austria 1 2%
Unknown 62 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 24%
Student > Master 11 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 14%
Other 7 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 10 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 6%
Psychology 3 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 5%
Other 10 16%
Unknown 14 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 July 2019.
All research outputs
#2,823,439
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#60
of 525 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,157
of 279,093 outputs
Outputs of similar age from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#1
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 525 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 279,093 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.