Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor in neovascular age-related macular degeneration - a systematic review of the impact of anti-VEGF on patient outcomes and healthcare systems.
Age-related macular degeneration
Anti-VEGF
Cost
Impact
Legal blindness
Neovascular
Systematic review
Vision-related QoL
Visual impairment
Journal
BMC ophthalmology
ISSN: 1471-2415
Titre abrégé: BMC Ophthalmol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967802
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
17 Jul 2020
17 Jul 2020
Historique:
received:
07
02
2020
accepted:
06
07
2020
entrez:
19
7
2020
pubmed:
19
7
2020
medline:
15
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Systematically review the evidence describing the impact of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapy on neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) patient outcomes and healthcare resource utilization. A systematic literature review was completed using Medline and EMBASE for publications prior to July 2018, and proceedings from major ophthalmology conferences (January 2016 to July 2018). The search strategy combined terms for nAMD with terms for anti-VEGF and study design. The review focused on publications describing the impact of anti-VEGF on blindness, visual impairment, vision-related quality of life (VRQoL), mortality, and costs. The search targeted data collected in epidemiological or observational studies to reflect real-world outcomes but also considered modeling-based approaches. The use of anti-VEGF in clinical practice was associated with significant reduction in the incidence of blindness by nAMD. Population-based analyses reported reduction in incidence among the general population of 47% (9.1 cases/100,000 in 2006 to 4.8 cases/100,000 in 2011). Among patients aged ≥50 years, a reduction of 50% was observed (52.2 cases/100,000 in 2000 to 25.7 cases/100,000 in 2010). In some cases, the odds of decreased vision (defined as decline from normal to moderate, moderate to severe, or severe to blindness) fell by 41% following introduction of anti-VEGF. Patients' VRQoL improved with treatment, with patients reporting a positive impact shortly after treatment was initiated. Change on National Eye Institute 25-Item Visual Function Questionnaire score from baseline to month 12 ranged from 0.7 to 4.4. Although nAMD patients report signs of depression and anxiety, the evidence suggests that there is no association between the use of anti-VEGF and the prevalence or diagnosis of depression. The introduction of anti-VEGF led to increased overall treatment costs due to replacement of existing less frequently administered treatments (e.g. photodynamic therapy) and increased number of patients treated (prior to anti-VEGF, only ~ 20% of patients were eligible for treatment). The introduction of anti-VEGF agents has been associated with a positive impact on patient-relevant outcomes, including a significant reduction in incidence of blindness and visual impairment by nAMD. Anti-VEGF agents replaced less-effective treatments, improving patient outcomes and broadening the patient population eligible for treatment.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Systematically review the evidence describing the impact of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapy on neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) patient outcomes and healthcare resource utilization.
METHODS
METHODS
A systematic literature review was completed using Medline and EMBASE for publications prior to July 2018, and proceedings from major ophthalmology conferences (January 2016 to July 2018). The search strategy combined terms for nAMD with terms for anti-VEGF and study design. The review focused on publications describing the impact of anti-VEGF on blindness, visual impairment, vision-related quality of life (VRQoL), mortality, and costs. The search targeted data collected in epidemiological or observational studies to reflect real-world outcomes but also considered modeling-based approaches.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The use of anti-VEGF in clinical practice was associated with significant reduction in the incidence of blindness by nAMD. Population-based analyses reported reduction in incidence among the general population of 47% (9.1 cases/100,000 in 2006 to 4.8 cases/100,000 in 2011). Among patients aged ≥50 years, a reduction of 50% was observed (52.2 cases/100,000 in 2000 to 25.7 cases/100,000 in 2010). In some cases, the odds of decreased vision (defined as decline from normal to moderate, moderate to severe, or severe to blindness) fell by 41% following introduction of anti-VEGF. Patients' VRQoL improved with treatment, with patients reporting a positive impact shortly after treatment was initiated. Change on National Eye Institute 25-Item Visual Function Questionnaire score from baseline to month 12 ranged from 0.7 to 4.4. Although nAMD patients report signs of depression and anxiety, the evidence suggests that there is no association between the use of anti-VEGF and the prevalence or diagnosis of depression. The introduction of anti-VEGF led to increased overall treatment costs due to replacement of existing less frequently administered treatments (e.g. photodynamic therapy) and increased number of patients treated (prior to anti-VEGF, only ~ 20% of patients were eligible for treatment).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The introduction of anti-VEGF agents has been associated with a positive impact on patient-relevant outcomes, including a significant reduction in incidence of blindness and visual impairment by nAMD. Anti-VEGF agents replaced less-effective treatments, improving patient outcomes and broadening the patient population eligible for treatment.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32680477
doi: 10.1186/s12886-020-01554-2
pii: 10.1186/s12886-020-01554-2
pmc: PMC7368708
doi:
Substances chimiques
Angiogenesis Inhibitors
0
Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A
0
Ranibizumab
ZL1R02VT79
Types de publication
Journal Article
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
294Références
Ophthalmology. 2014 Jan;121(1):193-201
pubmed: 24084500
PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000097
pubmed: 19621072
Arch Ophthalmol. 2010 Mar;128(3):359-62
pubmed: 20212208
Br J Ophthalmol. 2013 Sep;97(9):1168-72
pubmed: 23813420
PLoS One. 2014 Jun 30;9(6):e101072
pubmed: 24979237
Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila). 2013 Jan-Feb;2(1):23-7
pubmed: 26107864
J Psychiatr Res. 1982-1983;17(1):37-49
pubmed: 7183759
Br J Ophthalmol. 2014 Sep;98(9):1144-67
pubmed: 25136079
Eye (Lond). 2015 Sep;29(9):1156-61
pubmed: 26043706
Br J Ophthalmol. 2011 Oct;95(10):1433-6
pubmed: 21317425
Ophthalmology. 2016 Jun;123(6):1263-8
pubmed: 26927204
JAMA Ophthalmol. 2014 Apr 1;132(4):456-63
pubmed: 24458013
N Engl J Med. 2006 Oct 5;355(14):1419-31
pubmed: 17021318
Arch Ophthalmol. 1984 Nov;102(11):1640-2
pubmed: 6208888
Rom J Ophthalmol. 2016 Jan-Mar;60(1):9-13
pubmed: 27220225
Retina. 2013 Apr;33(4):854-61
pubmed: 23296047
Eye (Lond). 2016 Nov;30(11):1404-1406
pubmed: 27518544
Am J Ophthalmol. 2018 Jan;185:115-122
pubmed: 29224686
Am J Ophthalmol. 2012 Feb;153(2):214-221.e1
pubmed: 22264945
Acta Ophthalmol. 2013 Sep;91(6):540-6
pubmed: 23171290
Clin Ophthalmol. 2014 Sep 04;8:1711-6
pubmed: 25228787
PLoS One. 2017 Dec 8;12(12):e0189035
pubmed: 29220371
Ophthalmology. 2016 Nov;123(11):2386-2392
pubmed: 27615601
Arch Ophthalmol. 2001 Jul;119(7):1050-8
pubmed: 11448327
Ophthalmologica. 2015;234(3):151-9
pubmed: 26337381
Ophthalmology. 2014 Jun;121(6):1246-51
pubmed: 24518613
Lancet. 2018 Sep 29;392(10153):1147-1159
pubmed: 30303083
Am J Ophthalmol. 2011 Dec;152(6):1014-20
pubmed: 21843875
Lancet. 2012 May 5;379(9827):1728-38
pubmed: 22559899
Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1983 Jun;67(6):361-70
pubmed: 6880820
Am J Ophthalmol. 2018 Jul;191:135-139
pubmed: 29655642
Ophthalmology. 2012 Dec;119(12):2537-48
pubmed: 23084240
Acta Ophthalmol. 2016 Mar;94(2):203-4
pubmed: 26215781
N Engl J Med. 2006 Oct 5;355(14):1432-44
pubmed: 17021319
Arch Ophthalmol. 2010 Apr;128(4):506-8
pubmed: 20385955
Eye (Lond). 2012 Jul;26(7):933-6
pubmed: 22498793
Arch Ophthalmol. 2011 Jun;129(6):709-17
pubmed: 21670337
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006 Nov;47(11):4732-41
pubmed: 17065481
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007 Mar;48(3):1001-6
pubmed: 17325138
Am J Ophthalmol. 2017 May;177:213-224
pubmed: 28302534
Br J Ophthalmol. 2012 May;96(5):614-8
pubmed: 22133988
Acta Ophthalmol. 2020 Mar;98(2):132-138
pubmed: 31282617
Lancet Glob Health. 2014 Feb;2(2):e106-16
pubmed: 25104651
Arch Ophthalmol. 2012 Jun;130(6):794-5
pubmed: 22801846
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2017 Mar;255(3):475-484
pubmed: 27572301
J Gen Intern Med. 2001 Sep;16(9):606-13
pubmed: 11556941
Ophthalmology. 2008 Jan;115(1):18-25
pubmed: 17572499
Am J Ophthalmol. 2012 Feb;153(2):209-213.e2
pubmed: 22264944