scholarly journals PEY17 COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF PEGAPTANIB IN AGE-RELATED MACULAR DEGENERATION: IMPACT OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN US AND UK HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS

2006 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. A370 ◽  
Author(s):  
J Javitt ◽  
S Wolowacz ◽  
N Roskell ◽  
S Maciver ◽  
S Kelly ◽  
...  
Author(s):  
Marlene Hollaus ◽  
Wolf Bühl ◽  
Ursula Schmidt-Erfurth ◽  
Stefan Sacu

AbstractAge-related macular degeneration (AMD) is one of the main causes of visual impairment and blindness in patients over 60 years in developed countries. Whilst no effective form of therapy is available for the dry form of AMD, intravitreal application of anti-VEGF substances is able to prevent the progression of neovascular AMD (nAMD) in most cases. Aside from the drugs ranibizumab, aflibercept and brolucizumab, other agents such as bevacizumab are often used off-label in order to save expense. The treatment intervals have also been refined, so as to reduce the burden on patients and health care systems. After fixed injection intervals, the pro re nata-regimen has been developed. Each month, it is decided whether the patient receives intravitreal injections based on fixed criteria. In the treat and extend-protocol, patients receive injections on each visit, but the intervals between injections vary due to the clinical outcomes. The observe-and-plan regime allows scheduling of the injection intervals in blocks, for three consecutive injections at a time. However, results of real-world studies were not able to reproduce those obtained in the pivotal studies. A high number of visits and fear of the injection procedure impose a burden on patients, that is mostly accepted due to fear of vision loss. Caregivers also complain of loss of productivity and income from having to provide regular support to patients. Health care systems worldwide are affected by increasing treatment numbers and the costs involved. The treatment of nAMD constitutes an achievement for modern medicine. However, despite the challenges, it must be evaluated and reviewed repeatedly in order to provide the best therapy for patients.


2004 ◽  
Vol 171 (4S) ◽  
pp. 42-43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yair Latan ◽  
David M. Wilhelm ◽  
David A. Duchene ◽  
Margaret S. Pearle

2010 ◽  
Vol 28 (27) ◽  
pp. 4149-4153 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott R. Berry ◽  
Chaim M. Bell ◽  
Peter A. Ubel ◽  
William K. Evans ◽  
Eric Nadler ◽  
...  

Purpose Oncologists in the United States and Canada work in different health care systems, but physicians in both countries face challenges posed by the rising costs of cancer drugs. We compared their attitudes regarding the costs and cost-effectiveness of medications and related health policy. Methods Survey responses of a random sample of 1,355 United States and 238 Canadian medical oncologists (all outside of Québec) were compared. Results Response rate was 59%. More US oncologists (67% v 52%; P < .001) favor access to effective treatments regardless of cost, while more Canadians favor access to effective treatments only if they are cost-effective (75% v 58%; P < .001). Most (84% US, 80% Canadian) oncologists state that patient out-of-pocket costs influence their treatment recommendations, but less than half the respondents always or frequently discuss the costs of treatments with their patients. The majority of oncologists favor more use of cost-effectiveness data in coverage decisions (80% US, 69% Canadian; P = .004), but fewer than half the oncologists in both countries feel well equipped to use cost-effectiveness information. Majorities of oncologists favor government price controls (57% US, 68% Canadian; P = .01), but less than half favor more cost-sharing by patients (29% US, 41% Canadian; P = .004). Oncologists in both countries prefer to have physicians and nonprofit agencies determine whether drugs provide good value. Conclusion Oncologists in the United States and Canada generally have similar attitudes regarding cancer drug costs, cost-effectiveness, and associated policies, despite practicing in different health care systems. The results support providing education to help oncologists in both countries use cost-effectiveness information and discuss drug costs with their patients.


2013 ◽  
Vol 16 (7) ◽  
pp. A506 ◽  
Author(s):  
K.M. Clements ◽  
E.M. Hulbert ◽  
H.R. Panchmatia ◽  
M. Eriksson ◽  
K.U. Wittrup-Jensen ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document