Abstract

Comparative effectiveness research (CER) has received widespread attention and federal funding because of its potential to inform and improve treatment decisions. Since 2005, patients and their ophthalmologists have faced a dilemma in treating age-related macular degeneration (AMD)--the leading cause of blindness in the United States. Two closely related drugs have produced dramatic improvements in vision; one has been rigorously tested for use in AMD patients, while the other has been rigorously tested for use in cancer patients, but is now widely used to treat AMD. One drug costs 40 times as much as the other. This Issue Brief summarizes a CER study comparing these drugs head-to-head, and provides the most definitive evidence to date about the safety and effectiveness of the two alternatives.

Authors

Maguire MG

Institution

Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics (LDI), University of Pennsylvania, USA.

Source

LDI issue brief 17:8 2012 Jun pg 1-4

MeSH

Angiogenesis Inhibitors
Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized
Comparative Effectiveness Research
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Drug Approval
Drug Repositioning
Humans
Macular Degeneration
Off-Label Use
Patient Safety
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Treatment Outcome
United States
United States Food and Drug Administration
Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A
Visual Acuity

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

22754971