Aim: The aim of this work was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of faricimab against relevant therapeutic alternatives used in clinical practice for the treatment of diabetic macular oedema (DMO) in the UK.
Methods: A state-transition (Markov) model, with health states based on visual acuity scores and treatment pathways, was developed to conduct cost-utility analysis of faricimab treat and extend (T&E) regimen versus ranibizumab pro re nata (PRN) and aflibercept PRN over a time horizon of 25 years. Comparison against bevacizumab PRN was considered in scenario analysis. Effectiveness data for faricimab was sourced from the pivotal YOSEMITE and RHINE double-blind randomised controlled trials, and from a network meta-analysis for comparators. Costs and (dis)utilities were taken from nationally published sources or literature. The base case included indirect costs (productivity gains, informal care) given the wider impacts of DMO on society. Sensitivity analyses were conducted.
Results: In the base case, faricimab T&E dominated ranibizumab PRN and aflibercept PRN, being more effective and resulting in cost savings (between 0.16 and 0.36 mean QALYs gained, and £5483-9655 mean cost savings). In scenario analysis, faricimab was more effective but costlier compared with bevacizumab, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £8898 per QALY gained. Considering only healthcare payer costs, the ICER of faricimab compared with ranibizumab PRN was £7991 per QALY gained and faricimab dominated aflibercept PRN.
Conclusions: Faricimab T&E has the potential to reduce the burden of vision loss on society, giving people living with DMO greater independence and contributing to increased healthcare system capacity. At a threshold of £20,000, faricimab T&E is cost-effective compared with relevant comparators, and potentially cost saving.
© 2024. The Author(s).