Healthcare expenditure of intravitreal anti‐vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors compared with dexamethasone implant for diabetic macular oedema

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to estimate the 1‐year costs associated with treating diabetic macular oedema (DME) patients using current intravitreal anti‐vascular endothelial growth factor (anti‐VEGF) biologics compared with the dexamethasone implant. METHODS: We conducted a descriptive cost‐evaluation analysis using data from Oslo University Hospital and literature to compare three different intravitreal drugs for DME: bevacizumab, aflibercept and dexamethasone. Stratification of patients into ‘Naive’ or ‘Switch’ group was based on treatment history. We estimated the costs from healthcare and ‘extended’ healthcare perspectives. Sensitivity analysis evaluated the impact of various parameters. RESULTS: The average injections per patient per year for the Naive group (bevacizumab), Switch group (aflibercept) and dexamethasone were 9.5, 9.1 and 3.0 respectively. From a healthcare perspective, the 1‐year costs for the Naive group were 15% lower (bevacizumab, €3619), and for the Switch group, 23% higher (aflibercept, €5226) compared with dexamethasone (€4252). The ‘extended’ healthcare perspective showed the cost per patient per year for bevacizumab remained nominally lower in the Naive group, while dexamethasone remained lower for the Switch group (€5116 for dexamethasone, compared to €4987 for bevacizumab and €6537 for aflibercept). CONCLUSIONS: From a primary healthcare perspective, the dexamethasone as a first‐line DME treatment may increase economic costs in settings where bevacizumab is used off‐label. Treating resistant DMEwith dexamethasone may reduce the costs and treatment burden compared with switching to aflibercept.