Lee AY, et al. – The cost–effectiveness of Age–Related Eye Disease Study (AREDS) 1 & 2 supplements in patients with either bilateral intermediate age–related macular degeneration, AREDS category 3, or unilateral neovascular age–related macular degeneration AMD (nAMD), AREDS category 4 are evaluated in this study. The suggestion to publicly fund AREDS supplements to category 3 patients would depend on the healthcare system willingness to pay. In contrast, initiating AREDS supplements in AREDS category 4 patients is both cost saving and more successful than no supplement use and ought to, therefore, be considered in public health policy.

Methods

• For this study, they used combined trial and real–world outcomes data.
• A patient–level health state transition model based on levels of visual acuity in the better–seeing eye was constructed to simulate the costs and consequences of patients taking AREDS vitamin supplements.
• This study was conducted at UK National Health Service (NHS).
• The model was populated with information from AREDS and real–world outcomes and resource use from a prospective multicentre national nAMD database study containing 92976 ranibizumab treatment episodes.

Results

• In this study, they found the incremental cost–effectiveness ratio was £30197 for AREDS category 3.
• For AREDS category 4 compared with no intervention, AREDS supplements are more successful (10.59 vs 10.43 QALYs) and less costly (£52074 vs 54 900) over the lifetime of the patient.