Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Medline Book to support NIHPA logoLink to Medline Book to support NIHPA
. 2021 Jun;25(38):1–196. doi: 10.3310/hta25380

Intravitreal ranibizumab versus aflibercept versus bevacizumab for macular oedema due to central retinal vein occlusion: the LEAVO non-inferiority three-arm RCT.

Philip Hykin, A Toby Prevost, Sobha Sivaprasad, Joana C Vasconcelos, Caroline Murphy, Joanna Kelly, Jayashree Ramu, Abualbishr Alshreef, Laura Flight, Rebekah Pennington, Barry Hounsome, Ellen Lever, Andrew Metry, Edith Poku, Yit Yang, Simon P Harding, Andrew Lotery, Usha Chakravarthy, John Brazier
PMCID: PMC8287375  PMID: 34132192

Abstract

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.

Plain language summary

The eye functions like a camera. The retina, at the back of the eye, is the camera film, and the centre, the macula, allows us to see fine details. Approximately 6500 people each year in England and Wales are affected by fluid leaking out of congested tiny blood vessels, causing macular swelling or oedema. The cause is blockage of the main vein that normally drains blood from the retina. Three drugs, injected into the eye in tiny amounts every 4–8 weeks, have been shown to improve the vision of people with this condition. Two drugs, 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), are licensed for UK use, but the third, bevacizumab (1.25 mg/0.05 ml Avastin®; F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, Basel, Switzerland), is not, even though it is much cheaper and used extensively worldwide. To our knowledge, no trials have compared the three drugs over the typical 2-year treatment period. This multicentre, Phase III, double-masked, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial comparing the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of intravitreal therapy with ranibizumab (Lucentis) versus aflibercept (Eylea) versus bevacizumab (Avastin) for macular oedema due to central retinal Vein Occlusion (LEAVO) was designed to compare ranibizumab, aflibercept and bevacizumab in this type of macular oedema. The trial showed that all three drugs improved vision a lot, but bevacizumab improved vision to a slightly lesser degree than the other two drugs. All patients should be aware of these findings before considering their treatment options. A comparison of the costs and benefits of ranibizumab, aflibercept and bevacizumab, using data from the trial and other sources, found that all three led to similar improvements in quality of life. Because aflibercept and ranibizumab are so much more expensive, they may be poor value for money. If patients, their representatives and funders all agree, it may be possible to treat this type of macular oedema with bevacizumab, which is cheaper, keeping the other agents available if needed.

Full text of this article can be found in Bookshelf.

References

  1. Laouri M, Chen E, Looman M, Gallagher M. The burden of disease of retinal vein occlusion: review of the literature. Eye 2011;25:981–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.2011.92 doi: 10.1038/eye.2011.92. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  2. Hykin P, Prevost AT, Vasconcelos JC, Murphy C, Kelly J, Ramu J, et al. Clinical effectiveness of intravitreal therapy with ranibizumab vs. aflibercept vs. bevacizumab for macular edema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Ophthalmol 2019;137:1256–64. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2019.3305 doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2019.3305. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  3. Rogers S, McIntosh RL, Cheung N, Lim L, Wang JJ, Mitchell P, et al. The prevalence of retinal vein occlusion: pooled data from population studies from the United States, Europe, Asia, and Australia. Ophthalmology 2010;117:313–19.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2009.07.017 doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2009.07.017. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  4. Ponto KA, Elbaz H, Peto T, Laubert-Reh D, Binder H, Wild PS, et al. Prevalence and risk factors of retinal vein occlusion: the Gutenberg Health Study. J Thromb Haemost 2015;13:1254–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/jth.12982 doi: 10.1111/jth.12982. [DOI] [PubMed]
  5. Mitchell P, Smith W, Chang A. Prevalence and associations of retinal vein occlusion in Australia. The Blue Mountains Eye Study. Arch Ophthalmol 1996;114:1243–7. https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.1996.01100140443012 doi: 10.1001/archopht.1996.01100140443012. [DOI] [PubMed]
  6. Klein R, Klein BE, Moss SE, Meuer SM. The epidemiology of retinal vein occlusion: the Beaver Dam Eye Study. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 2000;98:133–41. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  7. Williamson TH. Central retinal vein occlusion: what’s the story? Br J Ophthalmol 1997;81:698–704. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.81.8.698 doi: 10.1136/bjo.81.8.698. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  8. Royal College of Ophthalmologists. Retinal Vein Occlusion (RVO) Guidelines. 2015. URL: www.rcophth.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Retinal-Vein-Occlusion-RVO-Guidelines-July-2015.pdf (accessed 17 September 2018).
  9. Campochiaro PA, Brown DM, Awh CC, Lee SY, Gray S, Saroj N, et al. Sustained benefits from ranibizumab for macular edema following central retinal vein occlusion: twelve-month outcomes of a phase III study. Ophthalmology 2011;118:2041–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2011.02.038 doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2011.02.038. [DOI] [PubMed]
  10. Brown DM, Heier JS, Clark WL, Boyer DS, Vitti R, Berliner AJ, et al. Intravitreal aflibercept injection for macular edema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion: 1-year results from the phase 3 COPERNICUS study. Am J Ophthalmol 2013;155:429–37.e7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2012.09.026 doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2012.09.026. [DOI] [PubMed]
  11. Korobelnik JF, Holz FG, Roider J, Ogura Y, Simader C, Schmidt-Erfurth U, et al. Intravitreal aflibercept injection for macular edema resulting from central retinal vein occlusion: one-year results of the phase 3 GALILEO study. Ophthalmology 2014;121:202–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.08.012 doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.08.012. [DOI] [PubMed]
  12. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Aflibercept for Treating Visual Impairment Caused by Macular Oedema Secondary to Central Retinal Vein Occlusion. Technology appraisal guidance 305. London: NICE; 2014. URL: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta305 (accessed 18 June 2019).
  13. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Ranibizumab for Treating Visual Impairment Caused by Macular Oedema Secondary to Retinal Vein Occlusion. Technology appraisal guidance 203. London: NICE; 2013. URL: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta283 (accessed 18 June 2019).
  14. Papadopoulos N, Martin J, Ruan Q, Rafique A, Rosconi MP, Shi E, et al. Binding and neutralization of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and related ligands by VEGF Trap, ranibizumab and bevacizumab. Angiogenesis 2012;15:171–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10456-011-9249-6 doi: 10.1007/s10456-011-9249-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  15. The Central Vein Occlusion Study Group. Baseline and early natural history report. The Central Vein Occlusion Study. Arch Ophthalmol 1993;111:1087–95. https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.1993.01090080083022 doi: 10.1001/archopht.1993.01090080083022. [DOI] [PubMed]
  16. Sivaprasad S, Amoaku WM, Hykin P, RVO Guideline Group. The Royal College of Ophthalmologists Guidelines on retinal vein occlusions: executive summary. Eye 2015;29:1633–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.2015.164 doi: 10.1038/eye.2015.164. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  17. Sun JK, Lin MM, Lammer J, Prager S, Sarangi R, Silva PS, Aiello LP. Disorganization of the retinal inner layers as a predictor of visual acuity in eyes with center-involved diabetic macular edema. JAMA Ophthalmol 2014;132:1309–16. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2014.2350 doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2014.2350. [DOI] [PubMed]
  18. Sun JK, Radwan SH, Soliman AZ, Lammer J, Lin MM, Prager SG, et al. Neural retinal disorganization as a robust marker of visual acuity in current and resolved diabetic macular edema. Diabetes 2015;64:2560–70. https://doi.org/10.2337/db14-0782 doi: 10.2337/db14-0782. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  19. Chan EW, Eldeeb M, Sun V, Thomas D, Omar A, Kapusta MA, et al. Disorganization of retinal inner layers and ellipsoid zone disruption predict visual outcomes in central retinal vein occlusion. Ophthalmol Retina 2019;3:83–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oret.2018.07.008 doi: 10.1016/j.oret.2018.07.008. [DOI] [PubMed]
  20. The Central Vein Occlusion Study Group. Natural history and clinical management of central retinal vein occlusion. The Central Vein Occlusion Study Group. Arch Ophthalmol 1997;115:486–91. https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.1997.01100150488006 doi: 10.1001/archopht.1997.01100150488006. [DOI] [PubMed]
  21. Hayreh S. Central retinal vein occlusion. Ophthalmol Clin North Am 1998;11:559–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0896-1549(05)70079-1 doi: 10.1016/S0896-1549(05)70079-1. [DOI]
  22. Tsui I, Kaines A, Havunjian MA, Hubschman S, Heilweil G, Prasad PS, et al. Ischemic index and neovascularization in central retinal vein occlusion. Retina 2011;31:105–10. https://doi.org/10.1097/IAE.0b013e3181e36c6d doi: 10.1097/IAE.0b013e3181e36c6d. [DOI] [PubMed]
  23. Nicholson L, Vazquez-Alfageme C, Clemo M, Luo Y, Hykin PG, Bainbridge JW, Sivaprasad S. Quantifying retinal area in ultra-widefield imaging using a 3-dimensional printed eye model. Ophthalmol Retina 2018;2:65–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oret.2017.03.011 doi: 10.1016/j.oret.2017.03.011. [DOI] [PubMed]
  24. McIntosh RL, Rogers SL, Lim L, Cheung N, Wang JJ, Mitchell P, et al. Natural history of central retinal vein occlusion: an evidence-based systematic review. Ophthalmology 2010;117:1113–23.e15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2010.01.060 doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2010.01.060. [DOI] [PubMed]
  25. Arditi A, Cagenello R. On the statistical reliability of letter-chart visual acuity measurements. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1993;34:120–9. [PubMed]
  26. Beck RW, Maguire MG, Bressler NM, Glassman AR, Lindblad AS, Ferris FL. Visual acuity as an outcome measure in clinical trials of retinal diseases. Ophthalmology 2007;114:1804–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2007.06.047 doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2007.06.047. [DOI] [PubMed]
  27. Scott IU, VanVeldhuisen PC, Ip MS, Blodi BA, Oden NL, Awh CC, et al. Effect of bevacizumab vs. aflibercept on visual acuity among patients with macular edema due to central retinal vein occlusion: the SCORE2 randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2017;317:2072–87. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.4568 doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.4568. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  28. Figueroa MS, Contreras I. Potential anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapies for central retinal vein occlusion. Drugs 2012;72:2063–71. https://doi.org/10.2165/11640820-000000000-00000 doi: 10.2165/11640820-000000000-00000. [DOI] [PubMed]
  29. Ogura Y, Roider J, Korobelnik JF, Holz FG, Simader C, Schmidt-Erfurth U, et al. Intravitreal aflibercept for macular edema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion: 18-month results of the phase 3 GALILEO study. Am J Ophthalmol 2014;158:1032–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2014.07.027 doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2014.07.027. [DOI] [PubMed]
  30. Pielen A, Clark WL, Boyer DS, Ogura Y, Holz FG, Korobelnik JF, et al. Integrated results from the COPERNICUS and GALILEO studies. Clin Ophthalmol 2017;11:1533–40. https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S140665 doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S140665. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  31. Heier JS, Clark WL, Boyer DS, Brown DM, Vitti R, Berliner AJ, et al. Intravitreal aflibercept injection for macular edema due to central retinal vein occlusion: two-year results from the COPERNICUS study. Ophthalmology 2014;121:1414–20.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.01.027 doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.01.027. [DOI] [PubMed]
  32. Braithwaite T, Nanji AA, Lindsley K, Greenberg PB. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor for macular oedema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014;5:CD007325. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007325.pub3 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007325.pub3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  33. Brown DM, Campochiaro PA, Singh RP, Li Z, Gray S, Saroj N, et al. Ranibizumab for macular edema following central retinal vein occlusion: six-month primary end point results of a phase III study. Ophthalmology 2010;117:1124–33.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2010.02.022 doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2010.02.022. [DOI] [PubMed]
  34. Campochiaro PA, Sophie R, Pearlman J, Brown DM, Boyer DS, Heier JS, et al. Long-term outcomes in patients with retinal vein occlusion treated with ranibizumab: the RETAIN study. Ophthalmology 2014;121:209–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.08.038 doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.08.038. [DOI] [PubMed]
  35. Chatziralli I, Theodossiadis G, Moschos MM, Mitropoulos P, Theodossiadis P. Ranibizumab versus aflibercept for macular edema due to central retinal vein occlusion: 18-month results in real-life data. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2017;255:1093–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-017-3613-1 doi: 10.1007/s00417-017-3613-1. [DOI] [PubMed]
  36. Ford JA, Clar C, Lois N, Barton S, Thomas S, Court R, et al. Treatments for macular oedema following central retinal vein occlusion: systematic review. BMJ Open 2014;4:e004120. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004120 doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004120. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  37. Pielen A, Feltgen N, Isserstedt C, Callizo J, Junker B, Schmucker C. Efficacy and safety of intravitreal therapy in macular edema due to branch and central retinal vein occlusion: a systematic review. PLOS ONE 2013;8:e78538. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0078538 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0078538. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  38. Heier JS, Campochiaro PA, Yau L, Li Z, Saroj N, Rubio RG, Lai P. Ranibizumab for macular edema due to retinal vein occlusions: long-term follow-up in the HORIZON trial. Ophthalmology 2012;119:802–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2011.12.005 doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2011.12.005. [DOI] [PubMed]
  39. Spaide RF, Chang LK, Klancnik JM, Yannuzzi LA, Sorenson J, Slakter JS, et al. Prospective study of intravitreal ranibizumab as a treatment for decreased visual acuity secondary to central retinal vein occlusion. Am J Ophthalmol 2009;147:298–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2008.08.016 doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2008.08.016. [DOI] [PubMed]
  40. Scott IU, VanVeldhuisen PC, Ip MS, Blodi BA, Oden NL, King J, et al. Baseline factors associated with 6-month visual acuity and retinal thickness outcomes in patients with macular edema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion or hemiretinal vein occlusion: SCORE2 study report 4. JAMA Ophthalmol 2017;135:639–49. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2017.1141 doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2017.1141. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  41. Bressler NM, Chang TS, Fine JT, Dolan CM, Ward J, Anti-VEGF Antibody for the Treatment of Predominantly Classic Choroidal Neovascularization in Age-Related Macular Degeneration (ANCHOR) Research Group. Improved vision-related function after ranibizumab vs. photodynamic therapy: a randomized clinical trial. Arch Ophthalmol 2009;127:13–21. https://doi.org/10.1001/archophthalmol.2008.562 doi: 10.1001/archophthalmol.2008.562. [DOI] [PubMed]
  42. Chang TS, Bressler NM, Fine JT, Dolan CM, Ward J, Klesert TR, MARINA Study Group. Improved vision-related function after ranibizumab treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration: results of a randomized clinical trial. Arch Ophthalmol 2007;125:1460–9. https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.125.11.1460 doi: 10.1001/archopht.125.11.1460. [DOI] [PubMed]
  43. Schmidt-Erfurth U, Kaiser PK, Korobelnik JF, Brown DM, Chong V, Nguyen QD, et al. Intravitreal aflibercept injection for neovascular age-related macular degeneration: ninety-six-week results of the VIEW studies. Ophthalmology 2014;121:193–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.08.011 doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.08.011. [DOI] [PubMed]
  44. Poku E, Rathbone J, Everson-Hock E, Essat M, Wong R, Pandor A, Wailoo A. Bevacizumab in Eye Conditions: Issues Related to Quality, Use, Efficacy and Safety. URL: http://nicedsu.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Bevacizumab-report-NICE-published-version-11.04.13.pdf (accessed 27 May 2013).
  45. Chakravarthy U, Harding SP, Rogers CA, Downes SM, Lotery AJ, Wordsworth S, Reeves BC, IVAN Study Investigators. Ranibizumab versus bevacizumab to treat neovascular age-related macular degeneration: one-year findings from the IVAN randomized trial. Ophthalmology 2012;119:1399–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.04.015 doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.04.015. [DOI] [PubMed]
  46. Martin DF, Maguire MG, Ying GS, Grunwald JE, Fine SL, Jaffe GJ, CATT Research Group. Ranibizumab and bevacizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. N Engl J Med 2011;364:1897–908. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1102673 doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1102673. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  47. Chakravarthy U, Harding SP, Rogers CA, Downes SM, Lotery AJ, Culliford LA, Reeves BC, IVAN study investigators. Alternative treatments to inhibit VEGF in age-related choroidal neovascularisation: 2-year findings of the IVAN randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2013;382:1258–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61501-9 doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61501-9. [DOI] [PubMed]
  48. Curtis LH, Hammill BG, Schulman KA, Cousins SW. Risks of mortality, myocardial infarction, bleeding, and stroke associated with therapies for age-related macular degeneration. Arch Ophthalmol 2010;128:1273–9. https://doi.org/10.1001/archophthalmol.2010.223 doi: 10.1001/archophthalmol.2010.223. [DOI] [PubMed]
  49. Carneiro AM, Barthelmes D, Falcão MS, Mendonça LS, Fonseca SL, Gonçalves RM, et al. Arterial thromboembolic events in patients with exudative age-related macular degeneration treated with intravitreal bevacizumab or ranibizumab. Ophthalmologica 2011;225:211–21. https://doi.org/10.1159/000323943 doi: 10.1159/000323943. [DOI] [PubMed]
  50. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Age-related Macular Degeneration. NICE guideline 82. London: NICE; 2018. URL: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng82 (accessed 7 April 2020).
  51. Thulliez M, Angoulvant D, Pisella PJ, Bejan-Angoulvant T. Overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on systemic adverse events associated with intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor medication use. JAMA Ophthalmol 2018;136:557–66. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2018.0002 doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2018.0002. [DOI] [PubMed]
  52. Solomon SD, Lindsley K, Vedula SS, Krzystolik MG, Hawkins BS. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019;3:CD005139. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005139.pub4 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005139.pub4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  53. Royal Courts of Justice. Judicial Review (2018) High Court Approved Judgement, Case No: CO/5288/2017. URL: www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/bayer-and-novartis-v-nhs-darlington-ccg-judgment.pdf (accessed 12 May 2020).
  54. Bressler NM, Beaulieu WT, Maguire MG, Glassman AR, Blinder KJ, Bressler SB, et al. Early response to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor and two-year outcomes among eyes with diabetic macular edema in protocol T. Am J Ophthalmol 2018;195:93–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2018.07.030 doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2018.07.030. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  55. Larsen M, Waldstein SM, Boscia F, Gerding H, Monés J, Tadayoni R, et al. Individualized ranibizumab regimen driven by stabilization criteria for central retinal vein occlusion: twelve-month results of the CRYSTAL study. Ophthalmology 2016;123:1101–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.01.011 doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.01.011. [DOI] [PubMed]
  56. Larsen M, Waldstein SM, Priglinger S, Hykin P, Barnes E, Gekkieva M, et al. Sustained benefits from ranibizumab for central retinal vein occlusion with macular edema: 24-month results of the CRYSTAL study. Ophthalmol Retina 2018;2:134–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oret.2017.05.016 doi: 10.1016/j.oret.2017.05.016. [DOI] [PubMed]
  57. Casselholm de Salles M, Amrén U, Kvanta A, Epstein DL. Injection frequency of aflibercept versus ranibizumab in a treat-and-extend regimen for central retinal vein occlusion: a randomized clinical trial. Retina 2019;39:1370–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/IAE.0000000000002171 doi: 10.1097/IAE.0000000000002171. [DOI] [PubMed]
  58. Scott IU, VanVeldhuisen PC, Ip MS, Blodi BA, Oden NL, Altaweel M, Berinstein DM, SCORE2 Investigator Group. Comparison of monthly vs. treat-and-extend regimens for individuals with macular edema who respond well to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor medications: secondary outcomes from the SCORE2 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Ophthalmol 2018;136:337–45. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2017.6843 doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2017.6843. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  59. Lotfy A, Solaiman KAM, Abdelrahman A, Samir A. Efficacy and frequency of intravitreal aflibercept versus bevacizumab for macular edema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion. Retina 2018;38:1795–800. https://doi.org/10.1097/IAE.0000000000001782 doi: 10.1097/IAE.0000000000001782. [DOI] [PubMed]
  60. Hoerauf H, Feltgen N, Weiss C, Paulus EM, Schmitz-Valckenberg S, Pielen A, et al. Clinical efficacy and safety of ranibizumab versus dexamethasone for central retinal vein occlusion (COMRADE C): a European label study. Am J Ophthalmol 2016;169:258–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2016.04.020 doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2016.04.020. [DOI] [PubMed]
  61. Low A, Faridi A, Bhavsar KV, Cockerham GC, Freeman M, Fu R, et al. Comparative effectiveness and harms of intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor agents for three retinal conditions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Ophthalmol 2019;103:442–51. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2018-312691 doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2018-312691. [DOI] [PubMed]
  62. Sangroongruangsri S, Ratanapakorn T, Wu O, Anothaisintawee T, Chaikledkaew U. Comparative efficacy of bevacizumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept for treatment of macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol 2018;11:903–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512433.2018.1507735 doi: 10.1080/17512433.2018.1507735. [DOI] [PubMed]
  63. Sivaprasad S, Hykin P, Prevost AT, Vasconcelos J, Riddell A, Ramu J, et al. Intravitreal aflibercept compared with panretinal photocoagulation for proliferative diabetic retinopathy: the CLARITY non-inferiority RCT. Efficacy Mech Eval 2018;5(5). https://doi.org/10.3310/eme05050 doi: 10.3310/eme05050. [DOI] [PubMed]
  64. Great Britain. Data Protection Act 1998. London: The Stationery Office; 1998.
  65. Rosser DA, Cousens SN, Murdoch IE, Fitzke FW, Laidlaw DA. How sensitive to clinical change are ETDRS logMAR visual acuity measurements? Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2003;44:3278–81. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.02-1100 doi: 10.1167/iovs.02-1100. [DOI] [PubMed]
  66. Ferris FL, Kassoff A, Bresnick GH, Bailey I. New visual acuity charts for clinical research. Am J Ophthalmol 1982;94:91–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9394(82)90197-0 doi: 10.1016/0002-9394(82)90197-0. [DOI] [PubMed]
  67. Babiuch AS, Han M, Conti FF, Wai K, Silva FQ, Singh RP. Association of disorganization of retinal inner layers with visual acuity response to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy for macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion. JAMA Ophthalmol 2019;137:38–46. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2018.4484 doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2018.4484. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  68. Das R, Spence G, Hogg RE, Stevenson M, Chakravarthy U. Disorganization of inner retina and outer retinal morphology in diabetic macular edema. JAMA Ophthalmol 2018;136:202–8. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2017.6256 doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2017.6256. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  69. Bolz M, Schmidt-Erfurth U, Deak G, Mylonas G, Kriechbaum K, Scholda C, Diabetic Retinopathy Research Group Vienna. Optical coherence tomographic hyperreflective foci: a morphologic sign of lipid extravasation in diabetic macular edema. Ophthalmology 2009;116:914–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2008.12.039 doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2008.12.039. [DOI] [PubMed]
  70. Framme C, Schweizer P, Imesch M, Wolf S, Wolf-Schnurrbusch U. Behavior of SD-OCT-detected hyperreflective foci in the retina of anti-VEGF-treated patients with diabetic macular edema. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2012;53:5814–18. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.12-9950 doi: 10.1167/iovs.12-9950. [DOI] [PubMed]
  71. Nicholson L, Vazquez-Alfageme C, Ramu J, Triantafyllopoulou I, Patrao NV, Muwas M, et al. Validation of concentric rings method as a topographic measure of retinal nonperfusion in ultra-widefield fluorescein angiography. Am J Ophthalmol 2015;160:1217–25.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2015.09.003 doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2015.09.003. [DOI] [PubMed]
  72. Nicholson L, Vazquez-Alfageme C, Patrao NV, Triantafyllopolou I, Bainbridge JW, Hykin PG, Sivaprasad S. Retinal nonperfusion in the posterior pole is associated with increased risk of neovascularization in central retinal vein occlusion. Am J Ophthalmol 2017;182:118–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2017.07.015 doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2017.07.015. [DOI] [PubMed]
  73. Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, Department of Health and Social Care. Good Manufacturing Practice and Good Distribution Practice. URL: www.gov.uk/guidance/good-manufacturing-practice-and-good-distribution-practice (accessed June 2020).
  74. ICH harmonized tripartite guideline: guideline for good clinical practice. J Postgrad Med 2001;47:45–50. [PubMed]
  75. Royal College of Ophthalmologists. Ophthalmic Service Guide. Intravitreal Injection Therapy. URL: www.rcophth.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Intravitreal-Injection-Therapy-August-2018-2.pdf (accessed June 2020).
  76. Martin DF, Maguire MG, Fine SL, Ying GS, Jaffe GJ, Grunwald JE, et al. Ranibizumab and bevacizumab for treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration: two-year results. Ophthalmology 2012;119:1388–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.03.053 doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.03.053. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  77. White IR, Horton NJ, Carpenter J, Pocock SJ. Strategy for intention to treat analysis in randomised trials with missing outcome data. BMJ 2011;342:d40. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d40 doi: 10.1136/bmj.d40. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  78. International conference on harmonisation; guidance on statistical principles for clinical trials; availability – FDA. Notice. Fed Regist 1998;63:49583–98. [PubMed]
  79. Lesaffre E. Superiority, equivalence, and non-inferiority trials. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis 2008;66:150–4. [PubMed]
  80. Garrett AD. Therapeutic equivalence: fallacies and falsification. Stat Med 2003;22:741–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1360 doi: 10.1002/sim.1360. [DOI] [PubMed]
  81. White IR, Carpenter J, Horton NJ. Including all individuals is not enough: lessons for intention-to-treat analysis. Clin Trials 2012;9:396–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/1740774512450098 doi: 10.1177/1740774512450098. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  82. White IR, Thompson SG. Adjusting for partially missing baseline measurements in randomized trials. Stat Med 2005;24:993–1007. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1981 doi: 10.1002/sim.1981. [DOI] [PubMed]
  83. Nicholson L, Vazquez-Alfageme C, Sen P, Patrao N, Peto T, Yang Y, et al. The clinical relevance of ultra-widefield angiography findings in patients with central retinal vein occlusion and macular oedema receiving anti-VEGF therapy [published online ahead of print May 25 2021]. Eye (Lond) 2021. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-021-01553-7 doi: 10.1038/s41433-021-01553-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  84. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal 2013. URL: www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg9/ (accessed 18 June 2019). [PubMed]
  85. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Developing NICE Guidelines: The Manual. 2014. URL: www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg20/ (accessed 18 June 2019). [PubMed]
  86. Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, Carswell C, Moher D, Greenberg D, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. Cost Eff Resour Alloc 2013;11:6. https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-7547-11-6 doi: 10.1186/1478-7547-11-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  87. Ramsey SD, Willke RJ, Glick H, Reed SD, Augustovski F, Jonsson B, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials II – An ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force report. Value Health 2015;18:161–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2015.02.001 doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2015.02.001. [DOI] [PubMed]
  88. Hykin P, Sivaprasad S, Prevost AT, Vasconcelos JC, Murphy C, Kelly J, et al. Protocol 14PRT/06545: A Multicentre Phase 3 Double-masked Randomised Controlled Non-Inferiority Trial Comparing the Clinical and Cost Effectiveness of Intravitreal Therapy with Ranibizumab (Lucentis) vs. Aflibercept (Eylea) vs. Bevacizumab (Avastin) for Macular Oedema due to Central Retinal Vein Occlusion (LEAVO trial). URL: www.thelancet.com/protocol-reviews/14PRT-06545 (accessed 25 May 2020).
  89. Alshreef A, Brazier J, Poku E, Hykin P, Sivaprasad S. LEAVO Health Economic and Decision Modelling Analysis Plan (HEDMAP). 2019. URL: https://figshare.shef.ac.uk/articles/LEAVO_Health_Economic_and_Decision_Modelling_Analysis_Plan_HEDMAP_/7988303/1 (accessed 13 May 2019).
  90. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 2009;339:b2535. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2535 doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2535. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  91. Kaltenthaler E, Tappenden P, Paisley S, Squires H. NICE DSU Technical Support Document 13: Identifying and Reviewing Evidence to Inform the Conceptualisation and Population of Cost-effectiveness Models. 2011. URL: http://nicedsu.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/TSD-13-model-parameters.pdf (accessed 19 July 2019). [PubMed]
  92. Coyle D, Lee K. Evidence-based Economic Evaluation: How the Use of Different Data Sources Can Impact Results. In Donaldson C, Mugford M, Vale L, editors. Evidence-based Health Economics: From Effectiveness to Efficiency in Systematic Review. London: BMJ Publishing Group; 2002. pp. 55–66.
  93. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. CASP (Systematic Review) Checklist 2018. URL: https://casp-uk.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/CASP-Systematic-Review-Checklist_2018.pdf (accessed 20 June 2019).
  94. Novartis International AG. LUMINOUS™: Study to Observe the Effectiveness and Safety of Ranibizumab through Individualized Patient Treatment and Associated Outcomes. 2017. URL: www.pei.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/awb/nis-0101-0200/0170-abschlussb.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=3 (accessed 24 June 2019).
  95. Pennington R, Alshreef A, Flight A, Metry A, Poku E, Hykin PG, et al. Cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab vs. aflibercept vs. bevacizumab for the treatment of macular oedema due to central retinal vein occlusion: the LEAVO study [published online ahead of print April 26 2021]. PharmacoEconomics 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-021-01026-5 doi: 10.1007/s40273-021-01026-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  96. Brown DM, Campochiaro PA, Bhisitkul RB, Ho AC, Gray S, Saroj N, et al. Sustained benefits from ranibizumab for macular edema following branch retinal vein occlusion: 12-month outcomes of a phase III study. Ophthalmology 2011;118:1594–602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2011.02.022 doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2011.02.022. [DOI] [PubMed]
  97. Claxton L, Hodgson R, Taylor M, Malcolm B, Pulikottil Jacob R. Simulation modelling in ophthalmology: application to cost effectiveness of ranibizumab and aflibercept for the treatment of wet age-related macular degeneration in the United Kingdom. PharmacoEconomics 2017;35:237–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-016-0459-z doi: 10.1007/s40273-016-0459-z. [DOI] [PubMed]
  98. Klein BE, Klein R, Moss SE. Change in visual acuity associated with cataract surgery. The Beaver Dam Eye Study. Ophthalmology 1996;103:1727–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0161-6420(96)30434-X doi: 10.1016/S0161-6420(96)30434-X. [DOI] [PubMed]
  99. Hayreh SS, Podhajsky PA, Zimmerman MB. Natural history of visual outcome in central retinal vein occlusion. Ophthalmology 2011;118:119–33.e1–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2010.04.019 doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2010.04.019. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  100. Fleurence RL, Hollenbeak CS. Rates and probabilities in economic modelling: transformation, translation and appropriate application. PharmacoEconomics 2007;25:3–6. https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200725010-00002 doi: 10.2165/00019053-200725010-00002. [DOI] [PubMed]
  101. Bertelsen M, Linneberg A, Christoffersen N, Vorum H, Gade E, Larsen M. Mortality in patients with central retinal vein occlusion. Ophthalmology 2014;121:637–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.07.025 doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.07.025. [DOI] [PubMed]
  102. Office for National Statistics. National Life Tables: UK. Newport: Office for National Statistics; 2018. URL: www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/lifeexpectancies/datasets/nationallifetablesunitedkingdomreferencetables (accessed 18 June 2019).
  103. Briggs AH, Weinstein MC, Fenwick EA, Karnon J, Sculpher MJ, Paltiel AD, ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force. Model parameter estimation and uncertainty: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force – 6. Value Health 2012;15:835–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.04.014 doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.04.014. [DOI] [PubMed]
  104. Mangione CM, Lee PP, Gutierrez PR, Spritzer K, Berry S, Hays RD, National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire Field Test Investigators. Development of the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire. Arch Ophthalmol 2001;119:1050–8. https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.119.7.1050 doi: 10.1001/archopht.119.7.1050. [DOI] [PubMed]
  105. Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, Parkin D, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res 2011;20:1727–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  106. Longworth L, Yang Y, Young T, Mulhern B, Hernández Alava M, Mukuria C, et al. Use of generic and condition-specific measures of health-related quality of life in NICE decision-making: a systematic review, statistical modelling and survey. Health Technol Assess 2014;18(9). https://doi.org/10.3310/hta18090 doi: 10.3310/hta18090. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  107. Tosh J, Brazier J, Evans P, Longworth L. A review of generic preference-based measures of health-related quality of life in visual disorders. Value Health 2012;15:118–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2011.08.002 doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2011.08.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  108. Brazier J, Czoski-Murray C, Roberts J, Brown M, Symonds T, Kelleher C. Estimation of a preference-based index from a condition-specific measure: the King’s Health Questionnaire. Med Decis Making 2008;28:113–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X07301820 doi: 10.1177/0272989X07301820. [DOI] [PubMed]
  109. Rentz AM, Kowalski JW, Walt JG, Hays RD, Brazier JE, Yu R, et al. Development of a preference-based index from the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire-25. JAMA Ophthalmol 2014;132:310–18. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2013.7639 doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2013.7639. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  110. Kowalski JW, Rentz AM, Walt JG, Lloyd A, Lee J, Young TA, et al. Rasch analysis in the development of a simplified version of the National Eye Institute Visual-Function Questionnaire-25 for utility estimation. Qual Life Res 2012;21:323–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9938-z doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-9938-z. [DOI] [PubMed]
  111. van Hout B, Janssen MF, Feng YS, Kohlmann T, Busschbach J, Golicki D, et al. Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value Health 2012;15:708–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.02.008 doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.02.008. [DOI] [PubMed]
  112. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Position Statement on Use of the EQ-5D-5L Valuation Set. London: NICE; 2017. URL: www.nice.org.uk/Media/Default/About/what-we-do/NICE-guidance/NICE-technology-appraisal- guidance/eq5d5l_nice_position_statement.pdf (accessed 16 February 2019).
  113. Wailoo AJ, Hernandez-Alava M, Manca A, Mejia A, Ray J, Crawford B, et al. Mapping to estimate health-state utility from non-preference-based outcome measures: an ISPOR Good Practices for Outcomes Research Task Force Report. Value Health 2017;20:18–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.11.006 doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.11.006. [DOI] [PubMed]
  114. Pennington BM, Hernández-Alava M, Hykin P, Sivaprasad S, Flight L, Alshreef A, Brazier J. Mapping from visual acuity to EQ-5D, EQ-5D with vision bolt-on and VFQ-UI in patients with macular edema in the LEAVO trial. Value Health 2020;23:928–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2020.03.008 doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2020.03.008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  115. University of Sheffield. Utility Calculator for Visual Acuity. URL: https://figshare.shef.ac.uk/articles/Utility_calculator_for_visual_acuity/9873731 (18 June 2019).
  116. Curtis L, Burns A. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2018. Canterbury: Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent; 2018.
  117. Joint Formulary Committee. British National Formulary (online). London: BMJ Group and Pharmaceutical Press. URL: www.medicinescomplete.com (accessed 13 May 2019).
  118. Department of Health and Social Care. Reference Costs 2017/18. London: Department of Health and Social Care; 2018.
  119. Thorn JC, Brookes ST, Ridyard C, Riley R, Hughes DA, Wordsworth S, et al. Core items for a standardized resource use measure: expert Delphi consensus survey. Value Health 2018;21:640–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2017.06.011 doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2017.06.011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  120. Royal National Institue of Blind People. The Criteria for Certification. 2019. URL: www.rnib.org.uk/eye-health/registering-your-sight-loss/criteria-certification (accessed 31 May 2019).
  121. Colquitt JL, Jones J, Tan SC, Takeda A, Clegg AJ, Price A. Ranibizumab and pegaptanib for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2008;12(16). https://doi.org/10.3310/hta12160 doi: 10.3310/hta12160. [DOI] [PubMed]
  122. Meads C, Hyde C. What is the cost of blindness? Br J Ophthalmol 2003;87:1201. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.87.10.1201 doi: 10.1136/bjo.87.10.1201. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  123. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Adalimumab and Dexamethasone for Treating Non-infectious Uveitis. Technology appraisal guidance 460. London: NICE; 2017. URL: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta460 (accessed 18 June 2019).
  124. Hatswell AJ, Bullement A, Briggs A, Paulden M, Stevenson MD. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis in cost-effectiveness models: determining model convergence in cohort models. PharmacoEconomics 2018;36:1421–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0697-3 doi: 10.1007/s40273-018-0697-3. [DOI] [PubMed]
  125. Drummond M, Brandt A, Luce B, Rovira J. Standardizing methodologies for economic evaluation in health care. Practice, problems, and potential. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1993;9:26–36. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266462300003007 doi: 10.1017/s0266462300003007. [DOI] [PubMed]
  126. Faria R, Gomes M, Epstein D, White IR. A guide to handling missing data in cost-effectiveness analysis conducted within randomised controlled trials. PharmacoEconomics 2014;32:1157–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-014-0193-3 doi: 10.1007/s40273-014-0193-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  127. Willan AR, Briggs AH, Hoch JS. Regression methods for covariate adjustment and subgroup analysis for non-censored cost-effectiveness data. Health Econ 2004;13:461–75. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.843 doi: 10.1002/hec.843. [DOI] [PubMed]
  128. Alshreef A, Wailoo AJ, Brown SR, Tiernan JP, Watson AJM, Biggs K, et al. Cost-effectiveness of haemorrhoidal artery ligation versus rubber band ligation for the treatment of grade II-III haemorrhoids: analysis using evidence from the HubBLe trial. Pharmacoecon Open 2017;1:175–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41669-017-0023-6 doi: 10.1007/s41669-017-0023-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  129. Manca A, Hawkins N, Sculpher MJ. Estimating mean QALYs in trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis: the importance of controlling for baseline utility. Health Econ 2005;14:487–96. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.944 doi: 10.1002/hec.944. [DOI] [PubMed]
  130. Department of Health and Social Care. NHS Reference Costs 2016/17. London: Department of Health and Social Care; 2017.
  131. Margrain TH. Minimising the impact of visual impairment. BMJ 1999;318:1504. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.318.7197.1504 doi: 10.1136/bmj.318.7197.1504. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  132. Galaria II, Casten RJ, Rovner BW. Development of a shorter version of the geriatric depression scale for visually impaired older patients. Int Psychogeriatr 2000;12:435–43. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1041610200006554 doi: 10.1017/s1041610200006554. [DOI] [PubMed]
  133. Owen CG, Fletcher AE, Donoghue M, Rudnicka AR. How big is the burden of visual loss caused by age related macular degeneration in the United Kingdom? Br J Ophthalmol 2003;87:312. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.87.3.312 doi: 10.1136/bjo.87.3.312. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  134. Deramo VA, Cox TA, Syed AB, Lee PP, Fekrat S. Vision-related quality of life in people with central retinal vein occlusion using the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire. Arch Ophthalmol 2003;121:1297–302. https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.121.9.1297 doi: 10.1001/archopht.121.9.1297. [DOI] [PubMed]
  135. Ford JA, Shyangdan D, Uthman OA, Lois N, Waugh N. Drug treatment of macular oedema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion: a network meta-analysis. BMJ Open 2014;4:e005292. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005292 doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005292. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  136. Giuffre G, Randazzo-Papa G, Palumbo C. Central retinal vein occlusion in young people. Doc Ophthalmol 1992;80:127–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00161238 doi: 10.1007/BF00161238. [DOI] [PubMed]
  137. May DR, Klein ML, Peyman GA, Raichand M. Xenon arc panretinal photocoagulation for central retinal vein occlusion: a randomised prospective study. Br J Ophthalmol 1979;63:725–34. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.63.11.725 doi: 10.1136/bjo.63.11.725. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  138. Sigford DK, Reddy S, Mollineaux C, Schaal S. Global reported endophthalmitis risk following intravitreal injections of anti-VEGF: a literature review and analysis. Clin Ophthalmol 2015;9:773–81. https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S77067 doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S77067. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  139. Xu Y, Tan CS. Safety and complications of intravitreal injections performed in an Asian population in Singapore. Int Ophthalmol 2017;37:325–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-016-0241-4 doi: 10.1007/s10792-016-0241-4. [DOI] [PubMed]
  140. Bradshaw SE, Gala S, Nanavaty M, Shah A, Mwamburi M, Kefalas P. Systematic literature review of treatments for management of complications of ischemic central retinal vein occlusion. BMC Ophthalmol 2016;16:104. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-016-0282-5 doi: 10.1186/s12886-016-0282-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  141. Braithwaite T, Nanji AA, Greenberg PB. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor for macular edema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010;10:CD007325. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007325.pub2 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007325.pub2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  142. Brand C. Luminous: results from the 2014 interim analysis to provide further real-world evidence for clinical ranibizumab use. Ophthalmologica 2014;232:4–5.
  143. Chatziralli I, Theodossiadis G, Chatzirallis A, Parikakis E, Mitropoulos P, Theodossiadis P. Ranibizumab for retinal vein occlusion: predictive factors and long-term outcomes in real-life data. Retina 2018;38:559–68. https://doi.org/10.1097/IAE.0000000000001579 doi: 10.1097/IAE.0000000000001579. [DOI] [PubMed]
  144. Cornel S, Adriana ID, Mihaela TC, Speranta S, Algerino S, Mehdi B, Jalaladin HR. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor indications in ocular disease. Rom J Ophthalmol 2015;59:235–42. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  145. Daradbounis D, Nanos P, Patsiamanidi M. Long term results of ranibizumab treatment in patients with macular oedema due to retinal venous occlusive disease. Ophthalmologica 2014;232:88.
  146. DeCroos FC, Todorich B, Alshareef R, Khuthaila M, Fekrat S, Ho AC, et al. Neovascular events in eyes with central retinal vein occlusion undergoing serial bevacizumab or ranibizumab intravitreal injections: a retrospective review. J Ophthalmic Vis Res 2014;9:461–8. doi: 10.4103/2008-322X.150825. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  147. Deonandan R, Jones S. Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Drugs for the Treatment of Retinal Conditions: A Review of the Safety. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2017. [PubMed]
  148. Edwards SJ, Barton S, Trevor N, Lois N, Nherera L, Hamilton V. PSS2 Comparisons of the clinical effectiveness of treatments for macular oedema (MO) caused by retinal vein occlusion (RVO). Value Health 2012;15:A568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.08.2049 doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.08.2049. [DOI]
  149. Freund KB, Korobelnik JF, Devenyi R, Framme C, Galic J, Herbert E, et al. Treat-and-extend regimens with anti-vegf agents in retinal diseases: a literature review and consensus recommendations. Retina 2015;35:1489–506. https://doi.org/10.1097/IAE.0000000000000627 doi: 10.1097/IAE.0000000000000627. [DOI] [PubMed]
  150. Gallego-Pinazo R, Dolz-Marco R, Marín-Lambíes C, Díaz-Llopis M. Safety and efficacy of ranibizumab in macular edema following retinal vein occlusion. Ophthalmol Eye Dis 2012;4:15–21. https://doi.org/10.4137/OED.S7264 doi: 10.4137/OED.S7264. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  151. Gerding H, Monés J, Tadayoni R, Boscia F, Pearce I, Priglinger S. Ranibizumab in retinal vein occlusion: treatment recommendations by an expert panel. Br J Ophthalmol 2015;99:297–304. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2014-305041 doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2014-305041. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  152. Glanville J, Patterson J, McCool R, Ferreira A, Gairy K, Pearce I. Efficacy and safety of widely used treatments for macular oedema secondary to retinal vein occlusion: a systematic review. BMC Ophthalmol 2014;14:7. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2415-14-7 doi: 10.1186/1471-2415-14-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  153. Hernando M, López M, Sánchez M, Manco F, Alonso J, Manzanas L. 4CPS-187 Effect of ranibizumab in vision-related quality of life in patients diagnosed with retinal pathology. Eur J Hosp Pharm 2018;25:A129. https://doi.org/10.1136/ejhpharm-2018-eahpconf.277 doi: 10.1136/ejhpharm-2018-eahpconf.277. [DOI]
  154. Jager RD, Aiello LP, Patel SC, Cunningham ET. Risks of intravitreous injection: a comprehensive review. Retina 2004;24:676–98. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006982-200410000-00002 doi: 10.1097/00006982-200410000-00002. [DOI] [PubMed]
  155. Jiang Y, Mieler WF. Update on the use of anti-VEGF intravitreal therapies for retinal vein occlusions. Asia Pac J Ophthalmol 2017;6:546–53. https://doi.org/10.22608/APO.2017459 doi: 10.22608/APO.2017459. [DOI] [PubMed]
  156. Jumper JM, Dugel PU, Chen S, Blinder KJ, Walt JG. Anti-VEGF treatment of macular edema associated with retinal vein occlusion: patterns of use and effectiveness in clinical practice (ECHO study report 2). Clin Ophthalmol 2018;12:621–9. https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S163859 doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S163859. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  157. Kinge B, Stordahl PB, Forsaa V, Fossen K, Haugstad M, Helgesen OH, et al. Efficacy of ranibizumab in patients with macular edema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion: results from the sham-controlled ROCC study. Am J Ophthalmol 2010;150:310–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2010.03.028 doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2010.03.028. [DOI] [PubMed]
  158. Konidaris V, Al-Hubeshy Z, Tsaousis KT, Gorgoli K, Banerjee S, Empeslidis T. Outcomes of switching treatment to aflibercept in patients with macular oedema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion refractory to ranibizumab. Int Ophthalmol 2018;38:207–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-017-0512-8 doi: 10.1007/s10792-017-0512-8. [DOI] [PubMed]
  159. Kornhauser T, Schwartz R, Goldstein M, Neudorfer M, Loewenstein A, Barak A. Bevacizumab treatment of macular edema in CRVO and BRVO: long-term follow-up. (BERVOLT study: Bevacizumab for RVO long-term follow-up). Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2016;254:835–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-015-3130-z doi: 10.1007/s00417-015-3130-z. [DOI] [PubMed]
  160. Kumar P, Banarji A, Patyal S, Gurunadh VS, Ahluwalia TS, Oli A, et al. A clinical study to evaluate the efficacy of intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy in treating macular edema due to retinal venous occlusions. Med J Armed Forces India 2013;69:260–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mjafi.2013.02.001 doi: 10.1016/j.mjafi.2013.02.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  161. Liu M, Eichenbaum D, Taylor S, Wang P, Quezada-Ruiz C. Branch and central retinal vein occlusion: clinical pearls from trials of ranibizumab. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2017;58:4624–4.
  162. Mohamed Q, McIntosh RL, Saw SM, Wong TY. Interventions for central retinal vein occlusion: an evidence-based systematic review. Ophthalmology 2007;114:507–19, 524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2006.11.011 doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2006.11.011. [DOI] [PubMed]
  163. ClinicalTrials.gov. A Study Evaluating Dosing Regimens for Treatment With Intravitreal Ranibizumab Injections in Subjects With Macular Edema Following Retinal Vein Occlusion. 2011. URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/ NCT01277302 (accessed 18 June 2019).
  164. Nghiem-Buffet S, Baillif S, Regnier S, Skelly A, Yu N, Sodi A. Treatment patterns of ranibizumab intravitreal injection and dexamethasone intravitreal implant for retinal vein occlusion in the USA. Eye 2017;31:551–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.2016.269 doi: 10.1038/eye.2016.269. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  165. Nicolò M, Bonetto M, Rosa R, Musetti D, Musolino M, Traverso CE, Giacomini M. Real-life management of patients with retinal vein occlusion using I-Macula web platform. J Ophthalmol 2017;2017:5601786. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/5601786 doi: 10.1155/2017/5601786. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  166. Nuzzi R, Tridico F. Local and systemic complications after intravitreal administration of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents in the treatment of different ocular diseases: a five-year retrospective study. Semin Ophthalmol 2015;30:129–35. https://doi.org/10.3109/08820538.2013.835833 doi: 10.3109/08820538.2013.835833. [DOI] [PubMed]
  167. Pacella E, Pacella F, La Torre G, Impallara D, Malarska K, Brillante C, et al. Testing the effectiveness of intravitreal ranibizumab during 12 months of follow-up in venous occlusion treatment. Clin Ter 2012;163:e413–22. [PubMed]
  168. Patel A, Nguyen C, Lu S. Central retinal vein occlusion: a review of current evidence-based treatment options. Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol 2016;23:44–8. https://doi.org/10.4103/0974-9233.173132 doi: 10.4103/0974-9233.173132. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  169. Penedones A, Mendes D, Alves C, Batel Marques F. Safety monitoring of ophthalmic biologics: a systematic review of pre- and postmarketing safety data. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther 2014;30:729–51. https://doi.org/10.1089/jop.2013.0206 doi: 10.1089/jop.2013.0206. [DOI] [PubMed]
  170. Poku E, Rathbone J, Wong R, Everson-Hock E, Essat M, Pandor A, Wailoo A. The safety of intravitreal bevacizumab monotherapy in adult ophthalmic conditions: systematic review. BMJ Open 2014;4:e005244. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005244 doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005244. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  171. Qian T, Zhao M, Xu X. Comparison between anti-VEGF therapy and corticosteroid or laser therapy for macular oedema secondary to retinal vein occlusion: a meta-analysis. J Clin Pharm Ther 2017;42:519–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpt.12551 doi: 10.1111/jcpt.12551. [DOI] [PubMed]
  172. Rayess N, Rahimy E, Storey P, Shah CP, Wolfe JD, Chen E, et al. Postinjection endophthalmitis rates and characteristics following intravitreal bevacizumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept. Am J Ophthalmol 2016;165:88–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2016.02.028 doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2016.02.028. [DOI] [PubMed]
  173. Regnard MA, Glacet-Bernard A, Mascali R, Souied EH. Anti-VEGF treatment of macular edema using a treat-and-extend regimen in retinal vein occlusion in clinical practice. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2016;57:4158–8.
  174. Risard SM, Pieramici DJ, Rabena MD, Basefsky JC, Avery RL, Castellarin AA, et al. Intravitreal ranibizumab for macular edema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion. Retina 2011;31:1060–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/IAE.0b013e3181fbce76 doi: 10.1097/IAE.0b013e3181fbce76. [DOI] [PubMed]
  175. Scott IU, Figueroa MJ, Oden NL, Ip MS, Blodi BA, VanVeldhuisen PC, SCORE2 Investigator Group. SCORE2 report 5: vision-related function in patients with macular edema secondary to central retinal or hemiretinal vein occlusion. Am J Ophthalmol 2017;184:147–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2017.10.008 doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2017.10.008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  176. Sharma S, Canadian Luminous Investigators. Baseline characteristics of Canadian patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD), diabetic macular edema (DME) and retinal vein occlusion (RVO) enrolled in the LUMINOUS study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2015;56:5356–6.
  177. Sophie R, Hafiz G, Scott AW, Zimmer-Galler I, Nguyen QD, Ying H, et al. Long-term outcomes in ranibizumab-treated patients with retinal vein occlusion; the role of progression of retinal nonperfusion. Am J Ophthalmol 2013;156:693–705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2013.05.039 doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2013.05.039. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  178. Tabandeh H, Boscia F, Sborgia A, Ciracì L, Dayani P, Mariotti C, et al. Endophthalmitis associated with intravitreal injections: office-based setting and operating room setting. Retina 2014;34:18–23. https://doi.org/10.1097/IAE.0000000000000008 doi: 10.1097/IAE.0000000000000008. [DOI] [PubMed]
  179. Taylor M, Serbetci E, Ferreira A, Gairy K, Lewis L, Blouin J, Mitchell P. A United Kingdom-based economic evaluation of ranibizumab for patients with retinal vein occlusion (RVO). J Med Econ 2014;17:423–34. https://doi.org/10.3111/13696998.2014.909435 doi: 10.3111/13696998.2014.909435. [DOI] [PubMed]
  180. Thulliez M, Angoulvant D, Le Lez ML, Jonville-Bera AP, Pisella PJ, Gueyffier F, Bejan-Angoulvant T. Cardiovascular events and bleeding risk associated with intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor monoclonal antibodies: systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Ophthalmol 2014;132:1317–26. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2014.2333 doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2014.2333. [DOI] [PubMed]
  181. Vorum H, Olesen TK, Zinck J, Størling Hedegaard M. Real world evidence of use of anti-VEGF therapy in Denmark. Curr Med Res Opin 2016;32:1943–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/03007995.2016.1221803 doi: 10.1080/03007995.2016.1221803. [DOI] [PubMed]
  182. Wang JK. A review of randomized trials of approved pharmaceutical agents for macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion. Asia Pac J Ophthalmol 2016;5:159–64. https://doi.org/10.1097/APO.0000000000000168 doi: 10.1097/APO.0000000000000168. [DOI] [PubMed]
  183. Wecker T, Ehlken C, Bühler A, Lange C, Agostini H, Böhringer D, Stahl A. Five-year visual acuity outcomes and injection patterns in patients with pro-re-nata treatments for AMD, DME, RVO and myopic CNV. Br J Ophthalmol 2017;101:353–9. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2016-308668 doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2016-308668. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  184. Yeh S, Kim SJ, Ho AC, Schoenberger SD, Bakri SJ, Ehlers JP, Thorne JE. Therapies for macular edema associated with central retinal vein occlusion: a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology 2015;122:769–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.10.013 doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.10.013. [DOI] [PubMed]
  185. Yuan A, Ahmad BU, Xu D, Singh RP, Kaiser PK, Martin DF, et al. Comparison of intravitreal ranibizumab and bevacizumab for the treatment of macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion. Int J Ophthalmol 2014;7:86–91. https://doi.org/10.3980/j.issn.2222-3959.2014.01.15 doi: 10.3980/j.issn.2222-3959.2014.01.15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  186. Ziemssen F, Feltgen N, Holz FG, Guthoff R, Ringwald A, Bertelmann T, et al. Demographics of patients receiving Intravitreal anti-VEGF treatment in real-world practice: healthcare research data versus randomized controlled trials. BMC Ophthalmol 2017;17:7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-017-0401-y doi: 10.1186/s12886-017-0401-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  187. Turner J, O’Cathain A, Knowles E, Nicholl J, Tosh J, Sampson F. Evaluation of NHS 111 Pilot Sites. Final Report to the Department of Health. Sheffield: Medical Care Research Unit, University of Sheffield; 2012.

RESOURCES