Abstract
OBJECTIVESSuprachoroidal injection of triamcinolone acetonide is the first Food and Drug Administration-approved treatment for macular edema associated with uveitis. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed comparing this treatment with best supportive care (BSC) for the management of this indication from US Medicare and commercial payer perspectives. METHODSA patient-level simulation was developed per the patient characteristics and changes in best-corrected visual acuity letter scores observed in a phase III study of triamcinolone acetonide (PEACHTREE). The wholesale acquisition cost of triamcinolone acetonide was $1650/injection; suprachoroidal injection cost was assumed at $200/injection. Healthcare costs were informed by a US claims-based analysis. Mortality risk associated with severe vision loss and blindness was modeled by applying a hazard ratio to all-cause mortality rates of the US general population. Health-related quality of life weights, obtained from a regression model fitted to the Visual Function Questionnaire-25 data from PEACHTREE, were applied based on the best-corrected visual acuity scores of both eyes. Costs (2020 US dollar) and benefits were discounted at 3% annually. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated over a 10-year horizon. RESULTSIn the base-case, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio comparing triamcinolone acetonide with BSC was $28 479 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. The wholesale acquisition cost for triamcinolone acetonide for suprachoroidal use was ∼68%, ∼56%, and ∼27% below the willingness-to-pay thresholds of $150 000, $100 000, and $50 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, respectively. Results were robust in sensitivity and scenario analyses. CONCLUSIONSTriamcinolone acetonide for suprachoroidal use is cost-effective compared with BSC for patients with macular edema associated with uveitis.
