Cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab versus ranibizumab for treatment-requiring retinopathy of prematurity: a multicenter real-world cohort study
In a multicenter real-world cohort study conducted in Colombia, bevacizumab was found to be a cost-effective first-line treatment for retinopathy of prematurity compared to ranibizumab, offering significantly lower retreatment rates and direct medical costs while maintaining comparable clinical outcomes.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
Every year, thousands of babies born too early face a silent threat to their sight. When a baby is born prematurely, the blood vessels in the back of the eye often stop growing before they are finished. If these vessels do not complete their journey, they can grow back in a chaotic, tangled mess that damages the retina and leads to blindness. This condition, known as retinopathy of prematurity, is a leading cause of preventable childhood blindness worldwide. While modern medicine has saved more premature infants than ever before, the specialized eye care needed to protect their vision has not always kept pace. Doctors have two main tools to stop this dangerous growth: they can burn away the unhealthy tissue with a laser, or they can inject a medicine directly into the eye to calm the blood vessels down.
The medicines used for this injection are designed to block a specific signal in the body that tells blood vessels to grow. Two of the most common drugs used for this are bevacizumab and ranibizumab. Both work by stopping that growth signal, but they behave differently inside the eye. One of them tends to stay active for a longer time, while the other wears off more quickly. This difference matters because if the medicine stops working too soon, the blood vessels can start growing again, forcing the baby to undergo another injection or a laser procedure. For families and hospitals, especially in places where resources are tight, the choice between these two drugs involves a difficult balance: which one offers the best chance of saving vision without requiring endless follow-up visits or draining the healthcare budget?
A team of researchers in Colombia set out to answer this question by looking at real-world data from fourteen different hospitals. They followed 121 premature infants who had developed severe eye disease requiring treatment. These babies were born before 37 weeks of pregnancy or weighed less than 2,000 grams at birth. The researchers tracked every child from the moment they received their first injection until they reached a specific developmental milestone known as 60 weeks of postmenstrual age. This period covers the time when the eye is most likely to show signs of the disease returning. The study compared the group of babies treated with bevacizumab against the group treated with ranibizumab, looking closely at how often they needed more treatment, how much the care cost, and how the treatments affected the families' overall well-being.
The results painted a clear picture of how these two drugs performed in a busy, real-world setting. The babies who received bevacizumab needed far fewer follow-up procedures. Only about 6 percent of the children in the bevacizumab group required a second treatment, whereas nearly 49 percent of the children in the ranibizumab group needed to be treated again. This difference was not just a small fluctuation; it was a major gap that translated into a significantly lighter burden on the healthcare system. Because the bevacizumab group needed fewer return visits and fewer repeat injections, the total cost of care for these families was substantially lower. The average cost for treating a baby with bevacizumab was roughly 1,706 US dollars, while the average cost for ranibizumab was nearly 2,682 US dollars.
Beyond the money and the number of visits, the researchers also looked at the quality of life for these infants. They measured this using a standard metric that combines how long a person lives with how well they live, known as quality-adjusted life-years. Surprisingly, despite the huge difference in how often the babies needed treatment, the overall quality of life scores were nearly identical for both groups. The children who received bevacizumab did not have better or worse vision outcomes in the short term compared to those who received ranibizumab; they simply reached that same point of stability with far fewer medical interventions. This suggests that the drug which stays active longer in the eye does not sacrifice safety or effectiveness for its durability.
The study also examined whether these results held true for the tiniest and most fragile babies. When the researchers broke down the data by birth weight and how early the babies were born, the pattern remained consistent. Even among the smallest infants, those under 1,000 grams, the bevacizumab group had zero retreatments, while the ranibizumab group saw retreatment rates of over 36 percent. The cost savings were also evident across all these different groups. The researchers ran thousands of computer simulations to test if their findings were robust, and the results consistently showed that bevacizumab was the more cost-effective choice. In fact, there was an 86 percent probability that bevacizumab was the better strategy for the healthcare system, offering the same health benefits for significantly less money.
This research highlights a crucial point for doctors and policymakers: choosing a treatment is not just about whether a drug works, but also about how it fits into the reality of patient care. For families in regions where travel to a specialist is difficult or where hospital resources are stretched thin, a drug that requires fewer return visits can make the difference between a child getting the care they need and a child falling through the cracks. While the study did not look at the very long-term effects of these drugs on a child's development, the evidence gathered over the first year of life strongly suggests that bevacizumab offers a high-value path forward. It provides a way to protect vision that is not only clinically effective but also economically sustainable, ensuring that the precious resources of the healthcare system can be used to help more children see the world clearly.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.