Verteporfin photodynamic therapy for neovascular age-related ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

62 Results (3) – objective E60,000Annual cost (£)40,00020,0000–10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Best VA in either eyeFIGURE 17 Scatterplot showing the annual cost of HSS resource use compared with better-seeing eye BCVA. Theregression line superimposed on a scatterplot of the raw data is derived from fitting the two-part model. Values of BCVA< 0 (–10 and –20) represent ‘counting fingers’ and ‘hand movements’ levels of vision respectively.–0.005Time from baseline (months)0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 240Mean predicted change in HRQoL–0.010–0.015–0.020–0.025–0.030–0.035–0.040–0.045–0.050BSCPDTFIGURE 18 Mean predicted change in HRQoL at 3-monthly time points for VPDT vs BSC for eyes with predominantlyclassic lesions that would have been EFT. Predictions combine VPDT map of HRQoL and visual acuity with visual acuityfor VDPT treatment and placebo groups reported in the TAP study.TABLE 20 Incremental costs, QALYs and costs per QALY results (VPDT vs BSC)Item Year 1 Year 2 (Year 1 + 2)Incremental intervention costs (£) 2860 744 3604Incremental costs of HSS (£) –59 –92 –151Incremental total costs (£) 2884 630 3514Incremental QALY 0.00866 0.01212 0.02071Incremental cost/QALY (£) 333,000 52000 170,000
DOI: 10.3310/hta16060Health Technology Assessment 2012; Vol. 16: No. 663Sensitivity analysesThe sensitivity analyses found that the results were robust to the methodological assumptions anddata sources used in the base-case analysis (Table 21). The probability that VPDT is cost-effectiveis zero unless the willingness to pay for a QALY gain exceeds £100,000 per QALY (Figure 19). Thefurther sensitivity analyses showed that:(i) If the treatment frequency was taken from TAP rather than the VPDT cohort study, theincremental costs increased to £5946 and the cost per QALY rose to £288,000.(ii) If the pre–post BCVA difference from the cohort study was used rather than the differencebetween arms in the TAP trials, then the estimated QALY gain was higher (0.0212 vs 0.0207),but the cost per QALY gained still exceeded £150,000.(iii) If the relationships of cost and HRQoL with CS rather than BCVA were used, this led to asmall increase in QALY gain compared with the base case (0.0220 vs 0.0207), but again thecost per QALY exceeded £150,000.(iv) If the costs of BSC were 10-fold those assumed in the base case, the cost per QALY was£91,000.(v) If the difference in BCVA observed for VPDT compared with BSC at 2 years was maintaineduntil 5 years, the cost per QALY was £94,000.TABLE 21 Sensitivity analyses on incremental cost (£) per QALY for VPDT vs BSC according to different assumptionsSensitivity analysis Incremental QALY Incremental cost Incremental cost/QALY aBase case 0.02066 3514 170,000TAP study treatment frequency 0.02066 5946 288,000VPDT cohort study VA results 0.02122 3511 165,000Contrast and sensitivity map 0.02201 3412 155,00010-fold increase in BSC costs 0.02066 1891 91,000VA, visual acuity.a Values rounded to the nearest 1000.Probability PDT is cost-effective10.90.80.70.60.50.40.30.20.10£0 £50,000 £100,000 £150,000 £200,000 £250,000 £300,000Willingness to pay for a QALY gainFIGURE 19 Cost-effectiveness acceptability curve for VPDT vs BSC.© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2012. This work was produced by Reeves et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by theSecretary of State for Health.
Page 5 and 6:
DOI: 10.3310/hta16060Health Technol
Page 12 and 13:
xExecutive summaryretreat on criter
Page 14 and 15:
xiiExecutive summaryof data, with i
Page 16 and 17:
2 Introductionon-going or new clini
Page 18 and 19:
4 Introductionof VPDT in routine cl
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26: DOI: 10.3310/hta16060Health Technol
Page 31: DOI: 10.3310/hta16060Health Technol
Page 34 and 35: 20 Key changes to the protocolThese
Page 36 and 37: 22 Key changes to the protocolCentr
Page 38 and 39: 24 Key changes to the protocolADVER
Page 40 and 41: 26 Key changes to the protocolPlan
Page 42 and 43: 28 Key changes to the protocolClass
Page 44 and 45: 30 Key changes to the protocolFor i
Page 46 and 47: 32 Key changes to the protocolIn ad
Page 48 and 49: 34 Key changes to the protocolsites
Page 52 and 53: 38 Results (1) - study cohortTABLE
Page 60 and 61: 46 Results (2) - objectives A, B, C
Page 80 and 81: 66 Discussion of resultsStrengths a
Page 82 and 83: 68 Discussion of resultsThe VPDT st
Page 84 and 85: 70 Discussion of resultsOur analyse
Page 86 and 87: 72 Discussion of resultsA further c
Page 88 and 89: 74 Discussion of resultsVPDT. It is
Page 98 and 99: 84 References16. Stelmack J. Qualit
Page 100 and 101: 86 References49. Guymer RH, Chiu AW
Page 102 and 103: 88 References83. Margrain TH. Minim
Page 104 and 105: 90 Appendix 1THE VERTEPORFIN PHOTOD
Page 106 and 107: 92 Appendix 11. Overview of Manual
Page 108 and 109: 94 Appendix 1And, if also collectin
Page 110 and 111: 96 Appendix 1more patients in the v
Page 112 and 113: 98 Appendix 12.4 Limitations of the
Page 114 and 115: 100 Appendix 1Box 2 Key advantages
Page 116 and 117: 102 Appendix 14. Study population4.
Page 118 and 119: 104 Appendix 15. Recruitment to the
Page 120 and 121: 106 Appendix 16. Background data co
Page 122 and 123: 108 Appendix 1Table 1: Schedule of
Page 124 and 125: 110 Appendix 1The Verteporfin Photo
Page 126 and 127:
112 Appendix 1• Additional clinic
Page 128 and 129:
114 Appendix 18. Recording adverse
Page 130 and 131:
116 Appendix 1level of benefit from
Page 132 and 133:
118 Appendix 1• comparison of num
Page 134 and 135:
120 Appendix 110.6 Sub-group analys
Page 136 and 137:
122 Appendix 112. Data issues12.1 D
Page 138 and 139:
124 Appendix 113. Organisation13.1
Page 140 and 141:
126 Appendix 114. References[1] Ref
Page 142 and 143:
128 Appendix 1Barnes RM, Gee L, Tay
Page 144 and 145:
130 Appendix 1Appendix 1: Classifyi
Page 146 and 147:
132 Appendix 1Liverpool re-treatmen
Page 148 and 149:
134 Appendix 1Service StructurePlea
Page 150 and 151:
136 Appendix 1Has your photographer
Page 152 and 153:
138 Appendix 1There are many differ
Page 154 and 155:
140 Appendix 1testing on vision tes
Page 156 and 157:
142 Appendix 1something to do with
Page 158 and 159:
144 Appendix 1College of Ophthalmol
Page 160 and 161:
146 Appendix 1Appendix 5:Protocol f
Page 162 and 163:
148 Appendix 16.2 Subjective Refrac
Page 164 and 165:
150 Appendix 1• The patient shoul
Page 166 and 167:
152 Appendix 1Appendix 6:Protocol f
Page 168 and 169:
154 Appendix 18. It is customary to
Page 170 and 171:
156 Appendix 1Early or Transit Phas
Page 172 and 173:
158 Appendix 1
Page 174 and 175:
160 Appendix 1---------------------
Page 176 and 177:
162 Appendix 1---------------------
Page 178 and 179:
164 Appendix 1---------------------
Page 180 and 181:
166 Appendix 1Appendix 9:Site imple
Page 182 and 183:
168 Appendix 1Option 2 - units inte
Page 184 and 185:
170 Appendix 1Dos and Don’tsDosDo
Page 186 and 187:
172 Appendix 1Resource use question
Page 188 and 189:
174 Appendix 1Appendix 11: Recommen
Page 190 and 191:
176 Appendix 1ADVERSE REACTION AND
Page 192 and 193:
178 Appendix 1acute Trust; note tha
Page 194 and 195:
180 Appendix 1Ophthalmologistrespon
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203:
Page 206 and 207:
192 Appendix 3manufacturer’s pers
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 216:
FeedbackThe HTA programme and the a
show all

Verteporfin photodynamic therapy for neovascular age-related ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?