Diabetic Macular Edema (DME) is an important complication of Diabetic Retinopathy (DR). Intravitreal steroids in slow-release systems represent a safe and effective therapeutic option for the management of DME, capable of improving patients’ quality of life by reducing the number of injections thus increasing the therapeutic adherence and the effectiveness of the treatment. This study aims to determine the economic impact of DME and the consequences, in terms of both expenditure and organizational impact, associated with a greater use of the intravitreal dexamethasone implant.

The analysis entailed the comparison between two scenarios: a first scenario based on the current use of therapeutic alternatives available in the Italian healthcare setting (as is) and an alternative scenario based on the assumption of an increased use of intravitreal dexamethasone implant (to be). The results of the analysis are expressed in terms of resource absorption associated with the two scenarios as well as in terms of the cost differential given by their comparison.

Despite an increase in expenditure in terms of acquisition costs of pharmacological alternatives (EUR 898,362) and interventions provided (EUR 22,093,160), the greater use of prolonged-release dexamethasone allows for significant savings in terms of healthcare professionals’ time, follow-up and productivity losses incurred by patient/caregiver. These reductions in healthcare costs resulted in a saving of EUR 1,987,678 over a 5-year period. Such a reduction would allow, considering a total annual management cost of EUR 6,115 for the intravitreal dexamethasone, to treat 325 more patients at the same cost of the as is scenario based on the current rate of use of dexamethasone.

In a context characterized by the need to increase the allocative efficiency of economic resources, the recourse to therapeutic alternatives, such as prolonged release dexamethasone, allowing the reduction of costs for the management of a given pathology is crucial to generate more value for patients and the entire society.

Health Technology Assessment (HTA) aims at providing decision makers with relevant data, matching different perspectives, with an evidence-based approach. The most common framework used is the European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) Core Model (1): HTA may be further supported by a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) (2,3), leading to a final quantitative synthesis, facilitating the appraisal phase.

This project presents a multi-dimensional comparison of the technologies available for the treatment of diabetic macular edema (Ranibizumab, Aflibercept, Dexamethasone implant and off-label Bevacizumab), comparing three Italian Regions: Lombardy, Liguria and Veneto.

The nine EUnetHTA dimensions were first prioritized by seventeen multidisciplinary evaluators. Thereafter a further nine professionals attributed a 3-level rating score (from “1” not performant, to “3” most performant) to each dimension and sub-dimension, after carefully assessing the three HTA reports. In conclusion, the investigation of statistically significant differences between the attributed scores of the evaluators was conducted, using a multi-variate analysis.

No statistically significant differences were reported in the prioritization of each dimension, except for the equity (more important in Liguria and in Lombardy) and the economic financial dimensions (more relevant in Veneto and in Lombardy).

Notwithstanding the evaluators’ different professional titles, job roles, center size, and various Regional contexts, they attributed similar scores to the HTA dimensions during the appraisal phase (even though conducted in different years, in 2015 and 2016). This finding demonstrates the robustness of both the evaluations and the final MCDA results: i) no statistically inter-regional significant differences emerged regarding Ranibizumab and Aflibercept (p-value >.05); ii) no statistically significant inter-regional differences emerged regarding Dexamethasone, except for the assessments in the clinical dimensions (p-value = .026), since in Lombardy Region the evaluation was carried out earlier in the technology's life-cycle.

Dexamethasone was consistently attributed a higher total score, considering the final normalised weight derived from the MCDA approach (p-value =.001).