Vol 5 (2020): Continuous Publishing
Original paper
Published online: 2020-07-20

open access

Page views 750
Article views/downloads 1096
Get Citation

Connect on Social Media

Connect on Social Media

The frequency and costs of intravitreal therapy agents in retinal diseases

Mahmut Atum1, Burçin Çakır1, İsa Yuvacı1, Erkan Çelik1, Gürsoy Alagöz1
Ophthalmol J 2020;5:55-59.


Background: The aim of this study is to analyze the numbers and the economic burden of intravitreal anti-VEGF agents and intravitreal dexamethasone (IVD) implants administered to patients with diabetic retinopathy (DR), age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and retinal vein occlusion (RVO).

Material and methods: The retrospective case-control study included 1525 patients diagnosed with DME, neovascular AMD and RVO, and received intravitreal anti-VEGF and IVD between January 2016 and December 2018. Intravitreal anti-VEGF administration was performed within the framework of the Pro Re Nata (PRN) regimen. The prices of anti-VEGF agents and IVDs were calculated on the average of the prices in the relevant year.

Results: The total number of intravitreal injections in 3 years was 5864. During the 3-year follow-up, on average,
ranibizumab (Lucentis) was applied 3.56 ± 2.25 times, alfibercept (Eylea) was applied 3.31 ± 2.16 times, and IVD
(Ozurdex) was applied 1.70 ± 0.83 times. The anti-VEGF numbers in 2016, 2017 and 2018 were 1997, 1801, 2066,
respectively. In total, the 3-year drug cost was 3,587,812.44 USD.

Conclusions: The economic burden of intravitreal anti-VEGF and IVD treatment for retinal diseases is so important to developing countries such as Turkey. The economic burden created by anti-VEGF agents and IVDs in Turkey will reduce in a serious sense, and the legal concerns of physicians will decrease thanks to the decision taken by the Turkish Medicines and Medical Devices Agency (TMMDA).

Article available in PDF format

View PDF Download PDF file


  1. Bourne R, Stevens G, White R, et al. Causes of vision loss worldwide, 1990–2010: a systematic analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2013; 1(6): e339–e349.
  2. Li JQ, Welchowski T, Schmid M et al. Retinal Diseases in Europe 2017. https://www.euretina.org/downloads/EURETINA_Retinal_Diseases.pdf (2017).
  3. Cai S, Bressler NM. Aflibercept, bevacizumab or ranibizumab for diabetic macular oedema: recent clinically relevant findings from DRCR.net Protocol T. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2017; 28(6): 636–643.
  4. Hanhart J, Rozenman Y. Comparison of Intravitreal Ranibizumab, Aflibercept, and Dexamethasone Implant after Bevacizumab Failure in Macular Edema Secondary to Retinal Vascular Occlusions. Ophthalmologica. 2017; 238(1-2): 110–118.
  5. Kovach JL, Schwartz SG, Flynn HW, et al. Anti-VEGF Treatment Strategies for Wet AMD. J Ophthalmol. 2012; 2012: 786870.
  6. Cai S, Bressler N. Aflibercept, bevacizumab or ranibizumab for diabetic macular oedema. Current Opinion in Ophthalmology. 2017; 28(6): 636–643.
  7. Chakravarthy U, Harding SP, Rogers CA, et al. IVAN Study Investigators. Ranibizumab versus bevacizumab to treat neovascular age-related macular degeneration: one-year findings from the IVAN randomized trial. Ophthalmology. 2012; 119(7): 1399–1411.
  8. Erie JC, Barkmeier AJ, Hodge DO, et al. High Variation of Intravitreal Injection Rates and Medicare Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Payments per Injection in the United States. Ophthalmology. 2016; 123(6): 1257–1262.
  9. Baker-Schena L. Expensive Drugs. Eye Net Mag. 2017: 39–44.
  10. Ross EL, Hutton DW, Stein JD, et al. Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network. Cost-effectiveness of Aflibercept, Bevacizumab, and Ranibizumab for Diabetic Macular Edema Treatment: Analysis From the Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network Comparative Effectiveness Trial. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2016; 134(8): 888–896.
  11. Turpcu A, Wilson K, Huang A et al. Injection frequency and costs of anti-vegf treatments for neovascular age-related macular degeneration, retinal vein occlusion, and diabetic macular Eedema. Value Heal 2015; 18(3): A180. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1098301515011018.
  12. Sosyal Güvenlik Kurumu. Sosyal Güvenlik Kurumu Sağlık Uygulama Tebliği. Sosyal Güvenlik Kurumu Sağlık Uygulama Tebliği. 2018. http://www.sgk.gov.tr/wps/portal/sgk/tr/kurumsal/merkez-teskilati/ana_hizmet_birimleri/gss_genel_mudurlugu/anasayfa_duyurular/guncel_sut_28122018.
  13. Schmidt-Erfurth U, Chong V, Loewenstein A, et al. European Society of Retina Specialists. Guidelines for the management of neovascular age-related macular degeneration by the European Society of Retina Specialists (EURETINA). Br J Ophthalmol. 2014; 98(9): 1144–1167.
  14. Lee R, Wong TY, Sabanayagam C. Epidemiology of diabetic retinopathy, diabetic macular edema and related vision loss. Eye Vis (Lond). 2015; 2: 17.
  15. Wong WL, Su X, Li X, et al. Global prevalence of age-related macular degeneration and disease burden projection for 2020 and 2040: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2014; 2(2): e106–e116.
  16. Flaxman S, Bourne R, Resnikoff S, et al. Global causes of blindness and distance vision impairment 1990–2020: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet Global Health. 2017; 5(12): e1221–e1234.
  17. Wecker T, Ehlken C, Bühler A, et al. Five-year visual acuity outcomes and injection patterns in patients with pro-re-nata treatments for AMD, DME, RVO and myopic CNV. Br J Ophthalmol. 2017; 101(3): 353–359.
  18. Ou WC, Brown DM, Payne JF, et al. Relationship Between Visual Acuity and Retinal Thickness During Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Therapy for Retinal Diseases. Am J Ophthalmol. 2017; 180: 8–17.
  19. Johnson MK, Lara N. PSS18 Direct Economic Burden of Regular Intravitreal Injections for the Treatment of Retina Diseases in Three European Countries. Value Heal. Elsevier Inc. 2011; 14(7): A505. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1098301511030452.
  20. Hollingworth W, Jones T, Reeves BC, et al. A longitudinal study to assess the frequency and cost of antivascular endothelial therapy, and inequalities in access, in England between 2005 and 2015. BMJ Open. 2017; 7(10): e018289.
  21. Dakin HA, Wordsworth S, Rogers CA, et al. IVAN Study Investigators. Cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab and bevacizumab for age-related macular degeneration: 2-year findings from the IVAN randomised trial. BMJ Open. 2014; 4(7): e005094.
  22. Hutton D, Newman-Casey PA, Tavag M, et al. Switching to less expensive blindness drug could save medicare part B $18 billion over a ten-year period. Health Aff (Millwood). 2014; 33(6): 931–939.
  23. Narayanan R, Panchal B, Das T, et al. MARVEL study group. A randomised, double-masked, controlled study of the efficacy and safety of intravitreal bevacizumab versus ranibizumab in the treatment of macular oedema due to branch retinal vein occlusion: MARVEL Report No. 1. Br J Ophthalmol. 2015; 99(7): 954–959.
  24. Martin DF, Maguire MG, Fine SL, et al. Comparison of Age-related Macular Degeneration Treatments Trials (CATT) Research Group. Ranibizumab and bevacizumab for treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration: two-year results. Ophthalmology. 2012; 119(7): 1388–1398.
  25. Raftery J, Clegg A, Jones J, et al. Ranibizumab (Lucentis) versus bevacizumab (Avastin): modelling cost effectiveness. Br J Ophthalmol. 2007; 91(9): 1244–1246.
  26. van Asten F, Michels CTJ, Hoyng CB, et al. The cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab, ranibizumab and aflibercept for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration-A cost-effectiveness analysis from a societal perspective. PLoS One. 2018; 13(5): e0197670.