Macular Degeneration: Mones J

Cruess AF, Zlateva G, Xu X, Soubrane G, Pauleikhoff D, Lotery A, Mones J, Buggage R, Schaefer C, Knight T, Goss TF. · Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. <> · Pharmacoeconomics. · Pubmed #18088159 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: There is limited previous research examining the healthcare costs of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (NV-AMD), which constrains our understanding of the economic impact of this condition. With aging populations, this leading cause of rapid vision loss in Western countries is expected to become a pressing health predicament, requiring decision makers to evaluate alternative treatment strategies for AMD. OBJECTIVE: To document the economic burden of bilateral NV-AMD, the late stage of AMD, in elderly patients, from a societal perspective. STUDY DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A cross-sectional, observational study surveyed 401 patients with bilateral NV-AMD and 471 non-AMD subjects in Canada, France, Germany, Spain and the UK. Physicians' records and subjects' standardized telephone interviews were used to record medical resource utilization, assistance with daily living and social benefits. Annual bilateral NV-AMD-related socioeconomic costs were calculated in euro, year 2005 values. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Societal costs including direct vision-related medical costs (e.g. treatment of AMD and vision-related equipment), direct non-vision-related medical costs (e.g. medications) and direct non-medical-related costs (e.g. home healthcare and social services) were the main outcome measures. RESULTS: The demographic profile of NV-AMD patients was similar across countries; however, co-morbid condition profiles varied. NV-AMD patients reported substantial health-related problems and associated health resource utilization (HRU). In the previous 12 months, 12-22% of patients fell, and half of these patients required medical treatments. More than 20% (range 21-59%) of patients were prescribed vision-enhancing equipment. More than half of the patients (54-81%) were living with a spouse or family member and 19-41% reported receiving assistance for activities of daily living.The average annual societal cost per bilateral NV-AMD patient treated was estimated to be euro 7879 in Canada, euro 7349 in France, euro 12 445 in Germany, euro 5732 in Spain and euro 5300 in the UK, and direct vision-related medical costs accounted for 23-63% of the total cost. Half of the patients were diagnosed with bilateral NV-AMD for <1 year, with an average length of 5 months; there were no statistically significant differences in total annual costs per patient between these patients and those who were diagnosed with bilateral disease for > or =1 year. Estimated annual societal costs of bilateral NV-AMD patients in these countries ranged from euro 268 to euro 1311 million. Estimated annual societal costs of all NV-AMD patients in these countries ranged from euro 671 to euro 3278 million. CONCLUSIONS: Bilateral NV-AMD imposes significant functional impairment on patients, leading to increased HRU and a high societal cost burden. Differences in national healthcare systems and NV-AMD treatment patterns were reflected in the wide variation of NV-AMD costs across the five surveyed countries. Even though the prevalence rates and per-patient costs varied by country, the societal costs of NV-AMD patients were substantial in each country. Earlier intervention with effective therapies is expected to reduce disease burden and disability associated with NV-AMD and, thus, decrease the overall societal cost.

Mones J. · Macular Unit, Institut Microcirurgia Ocular (IMO), Barcelona, Spain. · Drugs Today (Barc). · Pubmed #16395410 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Azab M, Benchaboune M, Blinder KJ, Bressler NM, Bressler SB, Gragoudas ES, Fish GE, Hao Y, Haynes L, Lim JI, Menchini U, Miller JW, Mones J, Potter MJ, Reaves A, Rosenfeld PJ, Strong A, Su XY, Slakter JS, Schmidt-Erfurth U, Sorenson JA, Anonymous00093, Anonymous00094. · No affiliation provided · Retina. · Pubmed #15076937 No free full text.

Abstract: PURPOSE: We sought to evaluate the detailed safety profile of photodynamic therapy with verteporfin in patients with subfoveal choroidal neovascularization (CNV) caused by age-related macular degeneration (ARMD) from the combined analysis of three multicenter, double-masked, placebo-controlled, randomized 24-month clinical trials of similar design (TAP Investigation Studies A and B and the VIP ARMD Trial), and to clarify the adverse reaction information in the current verteporfin product prescription information approved in the United States. METHODS: Nine hundred forty-eight patients were randomly assigned to verteporfin or placebo. Treatment was administered as described in previous reports. All general entry criteria were similar, so systemic safety results were combined for this analysis. Entry criteria for CNV lesion composition and visual acuity in the two TAP Investigation trials was different from those used in the VIP ARMD trial, so ocular safety results for the treated eye were not combined. RESULTS: The percentage of patients who experienced at least one ocular or nonocular adverse event, regardless of relationship to therapy, was similar between the verteporfin and placebo groups (92.3 and 89.1%, respectively, P = 0.114). The overall incidence of study eye adverse events was not significantly different between verteporfin and placebo. The only clinically relevant ocular adverse events reported with higher incidence after verteporfin compared with placebo were visual disturbances (22.1 versus 15.5% in TAP [P = 0.054] and 41.7 and 22.8% in VIP [P < 0.001]). Acute severe visual acuity decrease (defined as a visual acuity letter score decrease of at least 20, equivalent to at least four-line decrease, within 7 days of therapy) occurred in 3 patients treated with verteporfin in the TAP Investigation (0.7%) and 11 in the VIP ARMD trial (4.9%). Systemic adverse events with increased incidence after verteporfin compared with placebo, most of which were transient and mild or moderate, were injection site reactions (13.1 versus 5.6%; P < 0.001), photosensitivity reactions (2.4 versus 0.3%; P = 0.016), and infusion-related back pain (2.4 versus 0%; P = 0.004). No clinically relevant difference was observed between the verteporfin and placebo groups in any other adverse event. CONCLUSION: In 948 ARMD patients, verteporfin therapy had an overall safety profile similar to that for placebo, with a few exceptions. Visual disturbances, including acute severe visual acuity decrease, did not affect the net vision outcome benefits associated with treatment that has been reported previously. This detailed safety profile of verteporfin therapy clarifies the adverse reaction information in the current verteporfin product prescription information.