A Cost Effectiveness Analysis of Avacincaptad Pegol for the Treatment of Geographic Atrophy with Comparison to Pegcetacoplan

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of the treatment of geographic atrophy (GA) with intravitreal avacincaptad pegol (ACP) and to compare it with pegcetacoplan (PEG).

Design

Cost analysis based on data from published studies.

Subjects

None; based on data from published sham control compared with 2 treatment groups in each of the index studies.

Methods

Costs were based on 2022 Medicare reimbursement data for both facility (hospital-based) and nonfacility settings in Miami. Specific usage and outcomes were derived from the GATHER2 study as well as DERBY and OAKS trials. For ACP, all patients were treated every month (EM) in year 1 then randomized to every other month (EOM) or EM in year 2. Two-year models were created for patients in the facility setting for extrafoveal (ACP and PEG) and all patients (PEG).

Main Outcome Measures

Cost, cost utility, and cost per area of GA (in United States dollars).

Results

The cost to treat GA with ACP in EM and EOM treatment groups over the 2 years as reported was $67 400 and $40 600, respectively. With ACP treatment over 2 years, the daily cost of delaying GA 3.4 months (EM) and 4.5 months (EOM) was $649 (EM) and $356 (EOM). The (facility-based) costs per unit area of retinal pigment epithelium saved for patients with extrafoveal GA over the 2-year period were $119 000/mm² (EM ACP) versus $54 000/mm² (EM PEG) (P < 0.001), $57 100/mm² (EOM ACP) versus $31 400/mm² (EOM PEG) (P < 0.001), and $45 300/mm² (hypothetical EOM from outset ACP).

Conclusion

Treatment of GA with intravitreal ACP EOM was more cost effective than EM. When assessing extrafoveal lesions, ACP was less cost effective than PEG for both EM and EOM treatment.

Financial Disclosure(s)

Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.