Cost-effectiveness analysis of treatments for geographic atrophy: ACP vs PEG
While every other month (EOM) treatment with avacincaptad pegol (ACP) is more cost-effective than every month (EM) treatment, pegcetacoplan (PEG) is significantly more cost-effective than ACP for treating extrafoveal lesions, regardless of the treatment frequency, according to a study which underscores the importance of considering both treatment frequency and lesion location in determining the most economical approach to managing geographic atrophy (GA).
The study drew on data from the GATHER2 study as well as the DERBY and OAKS trials, utilizing 2022 Medicare reimbursement rates for both hospital-based (facility) and nonfacility settings in Miami.
The analysis modeled costs over a 2-year period, examining both every month (EM) and every other month (EOM) treatment regimens. The study focused on the cost per unit area of retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) saved and cost per day of delaying GA progression.
For ACP, the 2-year costs were $67,400 for EM treatment and $40,600 for EOM treatment. Daily costs for delaying GA by 3.4 months (EM) and 4.5 months (EOM) were calculated at $649 and $356, respectively.
In facility-based settings, the cost per unit area of RPE saved for extrafoveal GA patients over two years was significantly higher for ACP compared to PEG:
- EM ACP: $119,000/mm² vs. EM PEG: $54,000/mm² (P < 0.001)
- EOM ACP: $57,100/mm² vs. EOM PEG: $31,400/mm² (P < 0.001)
- Hypothetical EOM from outset ACP: $45,300/mm²
The study concluded that EOM treatment with ACP was more cost-effective than EM. However, when focusing on extrafoveal lesions, PEG proved to be significantly more cost-effective than ACP for both treatment regimens.
Reference
Patel NA, Hoyek S, Al-Khersan H, et al. A Cost Effectiveness Analysis of Avacincaptad Pegol for the Treatment of Geographic Atrophy with Comparison to Pegcetacoplan. Ophthalmol Retina. 2024;S2468-6530(24)00238-0. doi: 10.1016/j.oret.2024.05.011. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 38777140.
This content is independent editorial sponsored by Astellas. Astellas had no input in the development of this content.
