A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Pegcetacoplan for the Treatment of Geographic Atrophy

PURPOSE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the treatment of geography atrophy (GA) with intravitreal pegcetacoplan and to identify utility-measurement surrogates. DESIGN: Cost analysis based on data from a published study. SUBJECTS: None; based on data from published sham control compared with 2 treatment groups in the index study. METHODS: Costs were based on 2022 Medicare reimbursement data. Specific outcomes were extrapolated from the DERBY and OAKS trials. Assumptions were made for the lifetime analysis based on a theoretical logistic growth model of the atrophy. OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost, cost utility, cost per quality-adjusted life-year, and cost per area of GA (in US$). RESULTS: The costs to treat GA in every month (EM) and every-other-month (EOM) treatment groups over the 2 years as reported were $70 000 and $34 600, respectively. The costs per area of delaying GA for 2 years in all patients were $87 300/mm2 (EM) and $49 200/mm2 (EOM), and in initially extrafoveal patients, $53 900/mm2 (EM) and $32 100/mm2 (EOM). The costs per day of delaying GA for 2 years were $295 (EM) and $170 (EOM); the marginal cost (EM vs. EOM) per retinal pigment epithelium cell saved was $30. The modeled lifetime costs were $350 000 (EM) and $172 000 (EOM), or $309 000/mm2 (EM) and $180 000 (EOM) /mm2. The modeled time to 95% atrophy at 13 years was delayed by 2.5 years (EM) and 2.1 years (EOM). The costs/quality-adjusted life-year gained based on modeled visual loss with 95% atrophy were $706 000 (EM) and $397 000 (EOM). CONCLUSION: Treatment of GA with intravitreal pegcetacoplan EOM was more cost effective than EM. Treatment of extrafoveal lesions yielded greater utility than the treatment of the entire group. As atrophy progression approaches an upper limit, the marginal cost/benefit ratios increase. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.