A Systematic Review of Economic Studies Evaluating Ophthalmic Drugs: An Analysis of the Health-state Utilities

References

• Virgili G, Parravano M, Evans JR, Gordon I, Lucenteforte E. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor for diabetic macular oedema: a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;6:CD007419.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braithwaite T, Nanji AA, Lindsley K, Greenberg PB. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor for macular edema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;5:CD007325.
   Google Scholar
• Mitry D, Bunce C, Charteris D. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor for macular oedema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;1:CD009510.
   Google Scholar
• 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. 2017;8:CD005139.
   Google Scholar
• Haber SL, Benson V, Buckway CJ, Gonzales JM, Romanet D, Scholes B. Lifitegrast: a novel drug for patients with dry eye disease. Ther Adv Ophthalmol. 2019;11:2515841419870366.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suñer IJ, Kokame GT, Yu E, Ward J, Dolan C, Bressler NM. Responsiveness of NEI VFQ-25 to changes in visual acuity in neovascular AMD: validation studies from two phase 3 clinical trials. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2009;50(8):3629–3635. doi:10.1167/iovs.08-3225.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holland EJ, Luchs J, Karpecki PM, et al. Lifitegrast for the treatment of dry eye disease: results of a phase III, randomized, doublemasked, placebo-controlled trial (OPUS-3). Ophthalmology. 2017;124:53–60. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.09.025.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen M, Gong L, Sun X, et al. A comparison of cyclosporine 0.05% ophthalmic emulsion versus vehicle in Chinese patients with moderate to severe dry eye disease: an eight-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trial. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 2010;26:361–366. doi:10.1089/jop.2009.0145.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hollingworth W, Jones T, Reeves BC, Peto T. A longitudinal study to assess the frequency and cost of antivascular endothelial therapy, and inequalities in access, in England between 2005 and 2015. BMJ Open. 2017;7(10):e018289. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018289.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erie JC, Barkmeier AJ, Hodge DO, Mahr MA. High variation of intravitreal injection rates and medicare anti-vascular endothelial growth factor payments per injection in the United States. Ophthalmology. 2016;123(6):1257–1262. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.02.015.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parikh R, Ross JS, Sangaralingham LR, Adelman RA, Shah ND, Barkmeier AJ. Trends of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor use in ophthalmology among privately insured and medicare advantage patients. Ophthalmology. 2017;124(3):352–358. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.10.036.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Ranibizumab for treating visual impairment caused by macular oedema secondary to retinal vein occlusion. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta283/chapter/4-Consideration-of-the-evidence#cost-effectiveness. Published May 2013. Accessed October 7, 2019.
   Google Scholar
• The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Ciclosporin for treating dry eye disease that has not improved despite treatment with artificial tears. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta369/chapter/4-Consideration-of-the-evidence#summary-of-appraisal-committees-key-conclusions. Published December 2015. Accessed October 7, 2019.
   Google Scholar
• The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Aflibercept for treating diabetic macular oedema. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta346/chapter/4-Consideration-of-the-evidence. Published July 2015. Accessed October 7, 2019.
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg9/. Published April 2013. Accessed April 24, 2019.
   Google Scholar
• York Health Economics Consortium. Cost-utility analysis. https://www.yhec.co.uk/glossary/cost-utility-analysis/. Published 2016. Accessed May 20, 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Wolowacz SE, Briggs A, Belozeroff V, et al. Estimating health-state utility for economic models in clinical studies: an ISPOR good research practices task force report. Value Health. 2016;19(6):704–719. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2016.06.001.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao Y, Feng HM, Qu J, Luo X, Ma WJ, Tian JH. A systematic review of pharmacoeconomic guidelines. J Med Econ. 2018;21(1):85–96. doi:10.1080/13696998.2017.1387118.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hao Y, Wolfram V, Cook J. A structured review of health utility measures and elicitation in advanced/metastatic breast cancer. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2016;(2016:293–303.
   Google Scholar
• Ribeiro IS, Bat El Marques FJ, Alves DG, Alves CMC. A systematic review of the methodological quality of economic studies evaluating ophthalmic drugs. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2019;19(4):421–430. doi:10.1080/14737167.2019.1579646.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. 2004. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/191504/NICE_guide_to_the_methods_of_technology_appraisal.pdf. Published April 2004. Accessed May 20, 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4):264–269,W64. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, et al. Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS) statement. BMJ. 2013;346:f1049. doi:10.1136/bmj.f1049.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Asten F, Michels CTJ, Hoyng CB, et al. The cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab, ranibizumab and aflibercept for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration-A cost-effectiveness analysis from a societal perspective. PLoS One. 2018;13(5):e0197670. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0197670.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zorginstituut Nederland. Guideline for economic evaluations in healthcare. https://tools.ispor.org/PEguidelines/source/Netherlands_Guideline_for_economic_evaluations_in_healthcare.pdf. Published 2016. Accessed July 16, 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Hernandez L, Lanitis T, Cele C, Toro-Diaz H, Gibson A, Kuznik A. Intravitreal aflibercept versus ranibizumab for wet age-related macular degeneration: a cost-effectiveness analysis. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2018;24(7):608–616. doi:10.18553/jmcp.2018.24.7.608.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy. The AMCP format for formulary submissions Version 4.0. http://www.amcp.org/FormatV4/. Published 2016. Accessed July 16, 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Claxton L, Hodgson R, Taylor M, Malcolm B, Jacob RP. 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(2):237–248. doi:10.1007/s40273-016-0459-z.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yanagi Y, Fukuda A, Barzey V, Adachi K. Cost-effectiveness of intravitreal aflibercept versus other treatments for wet age-related macular degeneration in Japan. J Med Econ. 2017;20(2):204–212. doi:10.1080/13696998.2016.1245196.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fukuda T. Guideline for . Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation to the Central Social Insurance Medical Council. Version 1.0. https://tools.ispor.org/PEguidelines/source/Japanese_PE_Guideline.pdf. Published 2016. Accessed July 16, 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Ghosh W, Wickstead R, Claxton L, et al. The cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab treat and extend regimen versus Aflibercept in the UK. Adv Ther. 2016;33(9):1660–1676. doi:10.1007/s12325-016-0367-9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Panchmatia HR, Clements KM, Hulbert E, et al. Aflibercept vs. Ranibizumab: cost-effectiveness of treatment for wet age-related macular degeneration in Sweden. Acta Ophthalmol. 2016;94(5):441–448. doi:10.1111/aos.12964.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vottonen P, Kankaanpää E. Cost-effectiveness of treating wet age-related macular degeneration at the Kuopio University Hospital in Finland based on a two-eye Markov transition model. Acta Ophthalmol. 2016;94(7):652–656. doi:10.1111/aos.13185.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chakravarthy U, Harding SP, Rogers CA, et al. A randomised controlled trial to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of alternative treatments to inhibit VEGF in age-related choroidal neovascularisation (IVAN). Health Technol Assess. 2015;19(78):1–298. doi:10.3310/hta19780.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Butt T, Patel PJ, Tufail A, Rubin GS. Modelling cost effectiveness in neovascular age-related macular degeneration: the impact of using contrast sensitivity vs. visual acuity. Appl Health Econ Health Polic. 2014;12(3):289–297. doi:10.1007/s40258-014-0090-0.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dakin HA, Wordsworth S, Rogers CA, et al. Cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab and bevacizumab for age-related macular degeneration: 2-year findings from the IVAN randomised trial. BMJ Open. 2014;4:e005094. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005094.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elshout M, van der Reis MI, Webers CA, Schouten JS. The cost-utility of aflibercept for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration compared to bevacizumab and ranibizumab and the influence of model parameters. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2014;252(12):1911–1920. doi:10.1007/s00417-014-2641-3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stein JD, Newman-Casey PA, Mrinalini T, Lee P, Hutton D. Cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab and ranibizumab for newly diagnosed neovascular macular degeneration. Ophthalmology. 2014;121(4):936–945. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.10.037.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy. The AMCP format for formulary submissions Version 3.1. https://www.amcp.org/sites/default/files/2019-03/Format%20Version%203.1%20Final%202.2013_0.pdf. Published 2012. Accessed July 16, 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Stein JD, Newman-Casey PA, Mrinalini T, Lee PP, Hutton DW. Cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab and ranibizumab for newly diagnosed neovascular macular degeneration (an American Ophthalmological Society thesis). Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 2013;111:56–69.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Athanasakis K, Fragoulakis V, Tsiantou V, Masaoutis P, Maniadakis N, Kyriopoulos J. Cost-effectiveness analysis of ranibizumab versus verteporfin photodynamic therapy, pegaptanib sodium, and best supportive care for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration in Greece. Clin Ther. 2012;34(2):446–456. doi:10.1016/j.clinthera.2012.01.005.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nwanze CC, Akinwale A, Adelman RA. Bevacizumab vs. Ranibizumab in preserving or improving vision in patients with wet, age-related macular degeneration: a cost-effectiveness review. Clin Med Insights Ther. 2012;4:29–38.
   Google Scholar
• Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy. The AMCP format for formulary submissions Version 3.0. https://www.amcp.org/sites/default/files/2019-03/AMCP%20Format%20for%20Formulary%20Submissions%2C%20Version%203.0.pdf. Published 2009. Accessed July 16, 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Reeves BC, Harding SP, Langham J, et al. Verteporfin photodynamic therapy for neovascular age-related macular degeneration: cohort study for the UK. Health Technol Assess. 2012;16(6):1–200. doi:10.3310/hta16060.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gower EW, Cassard SD, Bass EB, Schein OD, Bressler NM. A cost-effectiveness analysis of three treatments for age-related macular degeneration. Retina. 2010;30(2):212–221. doi:10.1097/IAE.0b013e3181babd8e.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hernández-Pastor LJ, Ortega A, García-Layana A, Giráldez J. Cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab compared with pegaptanib in neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2010;248(4):467–476. doi:10.1007/s00417-009-1156-9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bastida JL, Oliva J, Antoñanzas F, et al. Propuesta de guía para la evaluación económica aplicada a las tecnologías sanitárias. Gac Sanit. 2010;24(2):154–170. doi:10.1016/j.gaceta.2009.07.011.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hodge W, Brown A, Kymes S, et al. Pharmacologic management of neovascular age-related macular degeneration: systematic review of economic evidence and primary economic evaluation. Can J Ophthalmol. 2010;45(3):223–230. doi:10.3129/i10-047.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada 3rd edition. https://www.cadth.ca/media/pdf/186_EconomicGuidelines_e.pdf. Published 2006. Accessed July 16, 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Neubauer AS, Holz FG, Sauer S, et al. Cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab for the treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration in Germany: model analysis from the perspective of Germany’s statutory health insurance system. Clin Ther. 2010;32(7):1343–1356. doi:10.1016/j.clinthera.2010.07.010.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care. General methods for the assessment of the relation of benefits to costs. https://tools.ispor.org/PEguidelines/source/Germany_AssessmentoftheRelationofBenefitstoCosts_En.pdf. Published 2009. Accessed July 16, 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Patel JJ, Mendes MA, Bounthavong M, Christopher ML, Boggie D, Morreale AP. Cost-utility analysis of bevacizumab versus ranibizumab in neovascular age-related macular degeneration using a Markov model. J Eval Clin Pract. 2012;18(2):247–255. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01546.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grieve R, Guerriero C, Walker J, et al. Verteporfin photodynamic therapy cohort study: report 3: cost effectiveness and lessons for future evaluations. Ophthalmology. 2009;116(12):2471–2477.e1-2. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2009.10.023.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown MM, Brown GC, Brown HC, Peet J. A value-based medicine analysis of ranibizumab for the treatment of subfoveal neovascular macular degeneration. Ophthalmology. 2008;115(6):1039–1045.e5. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2007.08.033.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy. The AMCP format for formulary submissions Version 2.1. https://www.amcp.org/sites/default/files/2019-03/Format%20Version%202.1%20April%202005.pdf. Published 2005. Accessed July 16, 2019.
   Google Scholar
• 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):iii–iv,ix-201. doi:10.3310/hta12160.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fletcher EC, Lade RJ, Adewoyin T, Chong NV. Computerized model of cost-utility analysis for treatment of age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology. 2008;115(12):2192–2198. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2008.07.018.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hernández-Pastor LJ, Ortega A, Garcia-Layana A, Giraldez J. Cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab compared with photodynamic treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Clin Ther. 2008;30(12):2436–2451. doi:10.1016/j.clinthera.2008.12.025.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hurley SF, Matthews JP, Guymer RH. Cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2008;6:12. doi:10.1186/1478-7547-6-12.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Javitt JC, Zlateva GP, Earnshaw SR, et al. Cost-effectiveness model for neovascular age-related macular degeneration: comparing early and late treatment with pegaptanib sodium based on visual acuity. Value Health. 2008;11(4):563–574. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00283.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown GC, Brown MM, Brown HC, Kindermann S, Sharma S. A value-based medicine comparison of interventions for subfoveal neovascular macular degeneration. Ophthalmology. 2007;114(6):1170–1178. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2006.09.019.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bansback N, Davis S, Brazier J. Using contrast sensitivity to estimate the cost-effectiveness of verteporfin in patients with predominantly classic age-related macular degeneration. Eye (Lond). 2007;21(12):1455–1463. doi:10.1038/sj.eye.6702636.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Earnshaw SR, Moride Y, Rochon S. Cost-effectiveness of pegaptanib compared to photodynamic therapy with verteporfin and to standard care in the treatment of subfoveal wet age-related macular degeneration in Canada. Clin Ther. 2007;29(9):2096–2106. doi:10.1016/j.clinthera.2007.09.001.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raftery J, Clegg A, Jones J, Tan SC, Lotery A. Ranibizumab (Lucentis) versus bevacizumab (Avastin): modelling cost effectiveness. Br J Ophthalmol. 2007;91(9):1244–1246. doi:10.1136/bjo.2007.116616.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolowacz SE, Roskell N, Kelly S, Maciver FM, Brand CS. Cost effectiveness of pegaptanib for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration in the UK. Pharmacoeconomics. 2007;25(10):863–879. doi:10.2165/00019053-200725100-00005.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown GC, Brown MM, Campanella J, Beauchamp GR. The cost-utility of photodynamic therapy in eyes with neovascular macular degeneration–a value-based reappraisal with 5-year data. Am J Ophthalmol. 2005;140(4):679–687. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2005.04.061.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharma S, Bakal J, Sharma SM, Covert D, Shah GK. Drug pricing for a novel treatment for wet macular degeneration: using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios to ensure societal value. Can J Ophthalmol. 2005;40(3):369–377. doi:10.1016/S0008-4182(05)80079-1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hopley C, Salkeld G, Mitchell P. Cost utility of photodynamic therapy for predominantly classic neovascular age related macular degeneration. Br J Ophthalmol. 2004;88(8):982–987. doi:10.1136/bjo.2003.039131.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith DH, Fenn P, Drummond M. Cost effectiveness of photodynamic therapy with verteporfin for age related macular degeneration: the UK case. Br J Ophthalmol. 2004;88(9):1107–1112. doi:10.1136/bjo.2003.023986.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meads C, Salas C, Roberts T, Moore D, Fry-Smith A, Hyde C. Clinical effectiveness and cost-utility of photodynamic therapy for wet age-related macular degeneration: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7(9):v–vi,1–98. doi:10.3310/hta7090.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sharma S, Brown GC, Brown MM, Hollands H, Shah GK. The cost-effectiveness of photodynamic therapy for fellow eyes with subfoveal choroidal neovascularization secondary to age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology. 2001;108(11):2051–2059. doi:10.1016/S0161-6420(01)00764-3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy. Format for formulary submissions Version 1.0. https://www.amcp.org/sites/default/files/2019-03/Format%20Version%201%200%20Final%2010.2000.pdf. Published 2000. Accessed July 16, 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Pochopien M, Beiderbeck A, McEwan P, Zur R, Toumi M, Aballéa S. Cost-effectiveness of fluocinolone acetonide implant (ILUVIEN®) in UK patients with chronic diabetic macular oedema considered insufficiently responsive to available therapies. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19(1):22. doi:10.1186/s12913-018-3804-4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kourlaba G, Relakis J, Mahon R, et al. Cost-utility of ranibizumab versus aflibercept for treating Greek patients with visual impairment due to diabetic macular edema. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2016;14:7. doi:10.1186/s12962-016-0056-1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ross EL, Hutton DW, Stein JD, et al. Cost-effectiveness of aflibercept, bevacizumab, and ranibizumab for diabetic macular edema treatment analysis from the diabetic retinopathy clinical research network comparative effectiveness trial. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2016;134(8):888–896. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2016.1669.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown GC, Brown MM, Turpcu A, Rajput Y. The cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab for the treatment of diabetic macular edema. Ophthalmology. 2015;122(7):1416–1425. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.03.032.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore PT, Cutino A, Green K, Kendall R, Zachary C. Economic evaluation of a fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant for patients with DME based on the FAME study. Am J Manag Care. 2015;21:S63–72.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Régnier SA, Malcolm W, Haig J, Weiguang X. Cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab versus aflibercept in the treatment of visual impairment due to diabetic macular edema: a UK healthcare perspective. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2015;7:235–247. doi:10.2147/CEOR.S82556.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verheggen BG, Westerhout KY, Schreder CH, Augustin M. Health economic comparison of SLIT allergen and SCIT allergoid immunotherapy in patients with seasonal grass-allergic rhinoconjunctivitis in Germany. Clin Transl Allergy. 2015;5:1. doi:10.1186/s13601-015-0045-z.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ronaldson S, Taylor M, Bech PG, Shenton R, Bufe A. Economic evaluation of SQ-standardized grass allergy immunotherapy tablet (Grazax(®)) in children. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2014;6:187–196. doi:10.2147/CEOR.S44079.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bachert C, Vestenbaek U, Christensen J, Griffiths UK, Poulsen PB. Cost-effectiveness of grass allergen tablet (GRAZAX) for the prevention of seasonal grass pollen induced rhinoconjunctivitis - a Northern European perspective. Clin Exp Allergy. 2007;37(5):772–779. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2222.2007.02706.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Canonica GW, Poulsen PB, Vestenbaek U. Cost-effectiveness of GRAZAX for prevention of grass pollen induced rhinoconjunctivitis in Southern Europe. Respir Med. 2007;101(9):1885–1894. doi:10.1016/j.rmed.2007.05.003.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keiding H, Jørgensen KP. A cost-effectiveness analysis of immunotherapy with SQ allergen extract for patients with seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis in selected European countries. Curr Med Res Opin. 2007;23(5):1113–1120. doi:10.1185/030079907X187865.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Gestel A, Webers CA, Severens JL, et al. The long-term outcomes of four alternative treatment strategies for primary open-angle glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol. 2012;90(1):20–31. doi:10.1111/j.1755-3768.2011.02318.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stewart WC, Stewart JA, Mychaskiw MA. Cost-effectiveness of latanoprost, travoprost and bimatoprost for the treatment of glaucoma in Norway, Sweden and Denmark, using a decision-analytic health economic model. Int J Ophthalmol (Guoki Yanke Zazhi). 2009;9:812–816.
   Google Scholar
• Stewart WC, Stewart JA, Mychaskiw MA. Cost-effectiveness of latanoprost and timolol maleate for the treatment of glaucoma in Scandinavia and the United Kingdom, using a decision-analytic health economic model. Eye (Lond). 2009;23(1):132–140. doi:10.1038/sj.eye.6702964.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Le Pen C, Ligier M, Berdeaux G. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis of travoprost versus latanoprost and timolol in the treatment of advanced glaucoma in five European countries: Austria, France, Germany, The Netherlands and the United Kingdom. J Med Econ. 2008;8(1–4):67–84. doi:10.3111/200508065084.
   Google Scholar
• Collège des Économistes de la Santé. French guidelines for the economic evaluation of health care technologies. http://www.ces-asso.org/docs/France_Guidelines_HE_Evaluation.PDF. Published 2000. Accessed July 16, 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Bermejo I, Squires H, Poku EN, et al. Adalimumab for non-infectious uveitis: is it cost-effective? Br J Ophthalmol. 2019;103(11):1633–1638. doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2018-312756.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Squires H, Bermejo I, Poku EN, et al. Dexamethasone implant for non-infectious uveitis: is it cost-effective? Br J Ophthalmol. 2019;103(11):1639–1644. doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2018-312765.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Squires H, Poku E, Bermejo I, et al. A systematic review and economic evaluation of adalimumab and dexamethasone for treating non-infectious intermediate uveitis, posterior uveitis or panuveitis in adults. Health Technol Assess. 2017;21(68):1–170. doi:10.3310/hta21680.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sugar EA, Holbrook JT, Kempen JH, et al. Cost-effectiveness of fluocinolone acetonide implant versus systemic therapy for noninfectious intermediate, posterior, and panuveitis. Ophthalmology. 2014;121(10):1855–1862. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.04.022.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adedokun L, Burke C. Cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab versus aflibercept for macular edema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion: a UK healthcare perspective. Adv Ther. 2016;33:116–128. doi:10.1007/s12325-015-0279-0.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor M, Serbetci E, Ferreira A, et al. A United Kingdom-based economic evaluation of ranibizumab for patients with retinal vein occlusion (RVO). J Med Econ. 2014;17(6):423–434. doi:10.3111/13696998.2014.909435.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Smiddy WE. Economic considerations of macular edema therapies. Ophthalmology. 2011;118(9):1827–1833. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2010.12.034.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Griffiths RI, Bleecker GC, Jabs DA, et al. Pharmacoeconomic analysis of 3 treatment strategies for cytomegalovirus retinitis in patients with AIDS. Pharmacoeconomics. 1998;13(4):461–474. doi:10.2165/00019053-199813040-00008.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore RD, Chaisson RE. Cost-utility analysis of prophylactic treatment with oral ganciclovir for cytomegalovirus retinitis. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol. 1997;16(1):15–21. doi:10.1097/00042560-199709010-00003.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brown MM, Brown GC, Brown HC, Peet J, Roth Z. Value-based medicine, comparative effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness analysis of topical cyclosporine for the treatment of dry eye syndrome. Arch Ophthalmol. 2009;127(2):146–152. doi:10.1001/archophthalmol.2008.608.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brown GC, Brown MM, Brown HC, Peet J, Roth Z. Topical cyclosporine (Restasis) cost-utility analysis. Evidence-Based Ophthalmol. 2009;10:166–171.
   Google Scholar
• Claxton L, Malcolm B, Taylor M, Haig J, Leteneux C. Ranibizumab, verteporfin photodynamic therapy or observation for the treatment of myopic choroidal neovascularization: cost effectiveness in the UK. Drugs Aging. 2014;31(11):837–848. doi:10.1007/s40266-014-0216-y.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leung EH, Gibbons Stout JT, Koch DD. Intracameral moxifloxacin for endophthalmitis prophylaxis after cataract surgery: cost-effectiveness analysis. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2018;44(8):971–978. doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2018.05.022.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zimmermann M, Lubinga SL, Banken R. Cost utility of voretigene neparvovec for Biallelic RPE65-mediated inherited retinal disease. Value Health. 2019;22(2):161–167. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2018.09.2841.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang JS, Smiddy WE. Cost evaluation of surgical and pharmaceutical options in treatment for vitreomacular adhesions and macular holes. Ophthalmology. 2014;121(9):1720–1726. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.03.029.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharma S, Bakal J. The value component of evidence-based medicine: the cost-utility of photodynamic therapy for pathologic myopia. Evidence-Based Eye Care. 2002;3(1):49–53. doi:10.1097/00132578-200201000-00025.
   Google Scholar
• Kymes SM. Is it time to move beyond the QALY in vision research? Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2014;21(2):63–65. doi:10.3109/09286586.2014.895843.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kay S, Ferreira AX. Mapping the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire (NEI VFQ-25) to EQ-5D utility scores. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2014;21(2):66–78. doi:10.3109/09286586.2014.888456.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pharmaceutical Management Agency. Prescription for pharmacoeconomic analysis - methods for cost-utility analysis Version 2.2. https://www.pharmac.govt.nz/assets/pfpa-2-2.pdf. Published 2015. Accessed May 31, 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Noel CW, Lee DJ, Kong Q, et al. Comparison of health state utility measures in patients with head and neck cancer. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2015;141(8):696–703. doi:10.1001/jamaoto.2015.1314.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arnold D, Girling A, Stevens A, Lilford R. Comparison of direct and indirect methods of estimating health state utilities for resource allocation: review and empirical analysis. BMJ. 2009;339:b2688. doi:10.1136/bmj.b2688.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polack S, Alavi Y, Rachapalle Reddi S, Kulothungan V, Kuper H. Utility values associated with diabetic retinopathy in Chennai, India. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2015;22(1):20–27. doi:10.3109/09286586.2014.885057.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meregaglia M, Cairns J. A systematic literature review of health state utility values in head and neck cancer. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017;15(1):174. doi:10.1186/s12955-017-0748-z.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rashidi AA, Anis AH, Marra CA. Do visual analogue scale (VAS) derived standard gamble (SG) utilities agree with health utilities index utilities? A comparison of patient and community preferences for health status in rheumatoid arthritis patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4(1):25. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-4-25.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Muratov S, Podbielski DW, Jack SM, et al. Preference-based disease-specific health-related quality of life instrument for glaucoma: a mixed methods study protocol. BMJ Open. 2016;6(11):e012732. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012732.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bozzani FM, Alavi Y, Jofre-Bonet M, Kuper H. A comparison of the sensitivity of EQ-5D, SF-6D and TTO utility values to changes in vision and perceived visual function in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma. BMC Ophthalmol. 2012;12:43. doi:10.1186/1471-2415-12-43.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fenwick EK, Xie J, Ratcliffe J, et al. The impact of diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular edema on health-related quality of life in type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012;53(2):677–684. doi:10.1167/iovs.11-8992.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Browne C, Brazier J, Carlton J, Alavi Y, Jofre-Bonet M. Estimating quality-adjusted life years from patient-reported visual functioning. Eye (Lond). 2012;26(10):1295–1301. doi:10.1038/eye.2012.137.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada 4th edition. https://cadth.ca/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines_for_the_economic_evaluation_of_health_technologies_canada_4th_ed.pdf. Published March 2017. Accessed May 31, 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Egyptian Drug Authority. Guidelines for reporting pharmacoeconomic evaluations. http://www.eda.mohp.gov.eg/Files/402_Egyptian_Pharmacoeconomic_guidelines.pdf. Published August 2013. Accessed May 31, 2019.
   Google Scholar
• National Institute of Pharmacy and Nutrition. Professional healthcare guideline on the methodology of health technology assessment. https://tools.ispor.org/PEguidelines/source/HTA_Guideline_HUN_eng.pdf. Published 2017. Accessed May 31, 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Health Information and Quality Authority. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies in Ireland. https://tools.ispor.org/PEguidelines/source/HIQA_Economic_Guidelines_2018.pdf. Published 2018. Accessed May 31, 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Sakthong P. Measurement of clinical-effect: utility. J Med Assoc Thai. 2008;91:S43–S52.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Drummond M, Brixner D, Gold M, Kind P, McGuire A, Nord E, Consensus Development Group. Toward a consensus on the QALY. Value Health. 2009;12(Suppl 1):S31–S35. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00522.x.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brazier J, Ara R, Azzabi I, et al. Identification, review, and use of health state utilities in cost-effectiveness models: an ISPOR good practices for outcomes research task force report. Value Health. 2019;22(3):267–275. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2019.01.004.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Misajon R, Hawthorne G, Richardson J, et al. Vision and quality of life: the development of a utility measure. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46:4007–4015. doi:10.1167/iovs.04-1389.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lloyd AJ, Loftus J, Turner M, Lai G, Pleil A. Psychometric validation of the Visual Function Questionnaire-25 in patients with diabetic macular edema. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013;11:10. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-11-10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Payakachat N, Summers KH, Pleil AM, Murawski MM. Predicting EQ-5D utility scores from the 25-item National Eye Institute Vision Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ 25) in patients with age-related macular degeneration. Qual Life Res. 2009;18:801–813. doi:10.1007/s11136-009-9499-6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown GC, Sharma S, Brown MM, Kistler J. Utility values and age-related macular degeneration. Arch Ophthalmol. 2000;118(1):47–51. doi:10.1001/archopht.118.1.47.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Czoski-Murray C, Carlton J, Brazier J, Young T, Papo NL, Kang HK. Valuing condition-specific health states using simulation contact lenses. Value Health. 2009;12(5):793–799. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00527.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schulman K, Glick H, Polsky D, Reed S. Pharmacoeconomics: economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals. In: Strom B, Kimmel S, Hennessy S, eds. Pharmacoepidemiolog. 5th ed. West Sussex, UK: John Willey & Sons; 2012:678–708.
   Google Scholar