THE GOAL OF VALUE-BASED MEDICINE ANALYSES: COMPARABILITY. THE CASE FOR NEOVASCULAR MACULAR DEGENERATION

Purpose: To evaluate the comparability of articles in the peer-reviewed literature assessing the (1) patient value and (2) cost-utility (cost-effectiveness) associated with interventions for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (ARMD). Methods: A search was performed in the National Library of Medicine database of 16 million peer-reviewed articles using the key words cost-utility, cost-effectiveness, value, verteporfin, pegaptanib, laser photocoagulation, ranibizumab, and therapy. All articles that used an outcome of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were studied in regard to (1) percent improvement in quality of life, (2) utility methodology, (3) utility respondents, (4) types of costs included (eg, direct healthcare, direct nonhealthcare, indirect), (5) cost bases (eg, Medicare, National Health Service in the United Kingdom), and (6) study cost perspective (eg, government, societal, third-party insurer). To qualify as a value-based medicine analysis, the patient value had to be measured using the outcome of the QALYs conferred by respective interventions. As with value-based medicine analyses, patient-based time tradeoff utility analysis had to be utilized, patient utility respondents were necessary, and direct medical costs were used. Results: Among 21 cost-utility analyses performed on interventions for neovascular macular degeneration, 15 (71%) met value-based medicine criteria. The 6 others (29%) were not comparable owing to (1) varying utility methodology, (2) varying utility respondents, (3) differing costs utilized, (4) differing cost bases, and (5) varying study perspectives