AMD supplements could save NHS $212m

The researchers based their findings on data from the Age Related Eye Disease Study (AREDS) as well as UK treatment costs and AMD prevalence figures for people over the age of 55. They then performed a cost-effectiveness assessment derived from more than 92,000 ranizbuzumab treatment episodes to come to their conclusion.{{quote-A:R-W:470-I:2-Q: Initiating AREDS supplents in AREDS category 4 patients [those with unilateral neovascular age-related macular degeneration AMD] is both cost saving and more effective than no supplent use and should therefore be considered in public health policy, -WHO:Aaron Lee, Associate Professor of The University of British Columbia}}The supplent is a combination of antioxidants, zinc, and vitamins, that was found to significantly reduce the risk of advanced AMD and its associated vision loss during AREDS trials in 2001 and 2013.The research team, headed by Associate Professor Aaron Lee, compared two different treatment options: immediate intervention with AREDS supplents, or no supplents.They found people who began taking the supplents during the early stages of the disease would need nearly eight fewer anti-VEGF injections over the course of their lifetime, representing a cost saving to the NHS of nearly £3,000 (AU$4,860) per patient.Were the program to be implented nationwide, it would amount to a saving of around £131 million (AU$212 m) a year.“Initiating AREDS supplents in AREDS category 4 patients [those with unilateral neovascular age-related macular degeneration AMD] is both cost saving and more effective than no supplent use and should therefore be considered in public health policy,” the study, published in the British Journal of Ophthalmology, concluded.However, the authors also stated that while there would still be savings from giving supplents to people with wet AMD in both eyes, the economic argument was not as strong as for those with the condition in one eye.