Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of VEGF inhibitors, ranibizumab, aflibercept, bevacizumab, brolucizumab, pegaptanib, and conbercept for wAMD treatment.

Methods

A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane, and SpringerLink databases to identify cost-effectiveness analyses and cost-utility analyses related to wAMD treatment. Eligible studies were assessed using Drummond’s 10-point checklist to evaluate methodological quality. The extracted data included intervention costs, quality-adjusted life-years, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.

Results

Twenty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. Bevacizumab and brolucizumab were frequently reported as cost-effective alternatives, offering comparable or superior visual outcomes at lower costs than ranibizumab or aflibercept. Pegaptanib was consistently less cost-effective. Findings for ranibizumab versus aflibercept varied by treatment regimen and analytic assumptions. Across studies, cost-effectiveness estimates were influenced by model perspective, time horizon, exclusion of adverse events, and single-eye modeling. A further limitation is that in contexts of non-inferior efficacy, small incremental quality-adjusted life-years differences may artificially inflate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, potentially overstating the costs relative to benefits.

Conclusions

Decision making in wAMD treatment requires more thorough economic evaluations that incorporate standardized methodologies and lengthy cost assessments.