Aflibercept (5) – Eylea®
Myopic choroidal neovascularisation
Characteristics
| Start date | 01.12.2015 – Marketing authorisation: 28.10.2015 |
|---|---|
| Resolution | 19.05.2016 |
| INN | Aflibercept |
| Brand name | Eylea® |
| Pharm. company | Bayer Vital GmbH |
| G-BA Procedure ID | D-197 |
| ATC code | S01LA05 Antineovascularisation agents (S01LA) |
| ICD-10 codes (AIS) | H31.8Other specified disorders of choroid |
| Alpha-ID codes (AIS) | I119191Choroidal neovascularization |
| DDD | 20 mg P |
| Therapeutic area | Eye diseases Myopic choroidal neovascularisation |
| Reason for procedure | New therapeutic indication |
| Therapeutic indication of the resolution |
|---|
|
Eylea is indicated for adults for the treatment of visual impairment due to myopic choroidal neovascularisation (myopic CNV). |
| Subpopulation | Indication | Comparator |
|---|---|---|
| Adult patients with visual impairment due to myopic choroidal neovascularization (myopic CNV) | Ranibizumab |
Studies and Results
|
No. of studies
(best subpopulation) |
1 (MYRROR) |
|---|---|
|
Study design
(best subpopulation) |
H2H vs. non-ACT + no ITC |
|
Meta analysis
(best subpopulation) |
no |
- Clinical trials
- The MYRROR registration trial for aflibercept (for the treatment of visual impairment due to myopic CNV) was a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind Phase III clinical trial.
- The target population for the trial was adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with choroidal neovascularisation (CNV) due to pathological myopia (PM). At the start of the trial, the treatment arm received a single intravitreal injection of aflibercept, followed by monthly follow-up injections as required, whilst the control arm received intravitreal sham injections.
Adults for the treatment of visual impairment due to myopic choroidal neovascularisation (myopic CNV)
- For patients with visual impairment due to myopic choroidal neovascularisation (myopic CNV), additional benefit is not proven.
- The pharmaceutical manufacturer has not submitted any study to assess the additional benefit of aflibercept compared with the G-BA’s appropriate comparator therapy (ranibizumab).
- This is because the G-BA’s appropriate comparator therapy was not used in any study.
- Furthermore, the pharmaceutical manufacturer has not identified any study for a possible indirect comparison.
- The G-BA cannot take the MYRROR study into account because ‘sham injections’ do not constitute the appropriate comparator therapy.
- On the basis of the information in the dossier, the IQWiG’s benefit assessment and the comments on the benefit assessment, the G-BA concludes that the additional benefit of aflibercept over the appropriate comparator therapy is not proven.
- Morbidity – improvement in visual acuity with best possible correction
- The primary endpoint examined was the improvement in best-corrected visual acuity over a period of 24 weeks.
- Conclusion
- On the basis of the information in the dossier, the IQWiG’s benefit assessment and the comments on the benefit assessment, the G-BA concludes that additional benefit from aflibercept compared with the appropriate comparator therapy is not proven.
Courtesy translation only, please refer to the German original.
Associated procedures
| Aflibercept (5) | Eylea® | Bayer Vital GmbH | Myopic choroidal neovascularisation | 27,500–80,000 | 100% additional benefit not proven | |
| Aflibercept (4) | Eylea® | Bayer Vital GmbH | Macular edema following retinal branch vein occlusion | 23,100–60,000 | 100% additional benefit not proven | |
| Aflibercept (3) | Eylea® | Bayer Vital GmbH | Diabetic macular edema | 128,350–132,360 | 100% additional benefit not proven | |
| Aflibercept (2) | Eylea® | Bayer Vital GmbH | Macular edema following retinal vein occlusion | 19,600–21,200 | 100% additional benefit not proven | |
| Aflibercept (1) | Eylea® | Bayer Vital GmbH | Neovascular age-related macular degeneration | 305,000 | 100% additional benefit not proven |
<< List of all resolutions