Jayashree Ramu

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.

Background: Panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) has been the standard of care for patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) for the last 40 years. It prevents severe visual loss in PDR but is also associated with adverse effects on visual functions. Objectives: The clinical efficacy and mechanistic evaluation of aflibercept for proliferative diabetic retinopathy (CLARITY) trial evaluated the clinical efficacy, mechanisms and cost-effectiveness of intravitreal aflibercept (Eylea^®, Regeneron, Tarrytown, NY, USA/Bayer Pharma AG, Berlin, Germany therapy for PDR. Design: A multicentre, prospective, individually randomised, single-masked, active-controlled trial with concurrent economic evaluation that tested the non-inferiority of intravitreal aflibercept versus standard care PRP at 52 weeks. A subset of the participants enrolled in a mechanistic evaluation substudy. Setting: 22 UK NHS clinical sites. Participants: Patients aged at least 18 years having either treatment-naive PDR or active retinal neovascularisation (NV) despite prior PRP requiring treatment and best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of 54 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters or better in the study eye were included. Eyes with evidence of macular oedema at baseline confirmed by central subfield thickness > 320 µm on spectral-domain optical coherence tomography were excluded. Intervention: In the intervention arm, intravitreal aflibercept injections were given at baseline, 4 and 8 weeks and patients were subsequently reviewed every month and injected pro re nata based on the treatment response defined by degree of regression of retinal NV. In the comparator arm, PRP was completed in 2-weekly sessions and then supplemented if necessary at 8-weekly intervals. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the mean change in BCVA at 52 weeks utilising a linear mixed-effects model incorporating data from both week 12 and week 52. Results: A total of 232 participants (116 per arm) were recruited between August 2014 and November 2015. A total of 221 and 210 participants contributed to the intention-to-treat (ITT) model and per-protocol (PP) analysis, respectively. Economic evaluation was undertaken on 202 participants (101 per arm) with complete cost and outcome data. Aflibercept was non-inferior and superior to PRP in both the ITT population [mean BCVA difference 3.9 letters, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.3 to 5.6 letters; p < 0.0001] and the PP population (difference 4.0 letters, 95% CI 2.4 to 5.7 letters; p < 0.0001). From a public sector multiagency perspective that covers health and social care services, treatment with aflibercept costs more in terms of total resource use (mean adjusted total additional cost per patient = £5475, bootstrapped 95% CI £5211 to £5750) than PRP over a 12-month follow-up period. There were a small number of important safety events in each arm. Patients were more satisfied with aflibercept than PRP. Limitations: This study is limited to 1 year of follow-up. Conclusions: At an additional cost, the study shows that intravitreal aflibercept is an effective alternative treatment option for PDR in the first year. Future work: Future research is needed to evaluate the long-term benefits of aflibercept in comparison with PRP and other anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents for this condition. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN32207582. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Efficacy and Mechanistic Evaluation programme, a Medical Research Council and NIHR partnership. Aflibercept was supplied by Bayer Plc (Reading, UK). The study was sponsored by NIHR Moorfields Biomedical Research Centre and supported by the UK Clinical Research Network. The research was supported by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and University College London Institute of Ophthalmology, the NIHR Moorfields Clinical Research Facility and the UK Clinical Reasearch Collaboration-registered King’s Clinical Trials Unit at King’s Health Partners, which is partly funded by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre for Mental Health at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College London.