1. Introduction: Patient-Centric Innovation in Rare Chronic Eye Diseases
1.1. What is keratoconus?
Some of the greatest challenges in medicine don’t involve common diseases—they involve rare illnesses that affect smaller, often overlooked groups of patients. Keratoconus is a clear example. It’s a progressive eye condition in which the cornea (the transparent outer layer of the eye) gradually thins and bulges outward into a cone shape. This structural change distorts vision and may result in severe visual impairment.1,2
Keratoconus is considered a rare disease.3 In one commonly-cited clinical and epidemiologic study, the prevalence was 54.5 per 100,000 population.4 Among those afflicted, its impact on daily life can be enormous. It most commonly emerges in teenagers or young adults—just as they’re preparing for independence and early adulthood. Picture a 19-year-old art student whose world starts to blur. The diagnosis: keratoconus. Suddenly, their future (from reading to driving to finishing college) feels uncertain.
1.2. Limited treatment options until recently
For years, managing keratoconus meant symptomatically managing vision loss with glasses or rigid contact lenses while the underlying disease continued to progress.1,2 But once the disease advanced, the main path to visual rehabilitation was a corneal transplant—a major surgery associated with risks such as graft rejection, cataracts, and long-term complications like glaucoma,5 as well as the likely need to receive multiple regrafts over a lifetime. For many patients, the path forward was uncertain, and the outcomes weren’t guaranteed.
1.3. A new direction: corneal cross-linking technology
Things began to change around 2010 with the arrival of corneal collagen cross-linking. This procedure uses a specific formulation of riboflavin (vitamin B2) activated by UV-A light to strengthen the cornea by creating new molecular bonds in the tissue.6 The standard method, called epithelium-off cross-linking, works by surgically removing the top layer of the cornea (the epithelium) so the riboflavin can penetrate the underlying layers. It’s effective, but not without downsides. Patients often experience significant pain after the procedure, prolonged recovery time with disruptions to the activities of daily living (school, work) and there’s a risk of infection and corneal haze, which may be permanent in rare situations.
That’s what led researchers to look for a less invasive alternative: epithelium-on oxygen-enriched cross-linking. This newer approach leaves the protective surface of the eye intact. As a result, patients tend to have less pain,7 a lower risk of corneal haze,8 and a faster recovery.9 Additionally, early animal studies suggest that keeping the epithelium in place may reduce the risk of infection by preventing bacterial adhesion to the deeper layers of the cornea.10,11 A 2025 review of epithelium-on cross-linking in humans concluded that “[t]he preservation of the epithelial layer likely contributes to offer a natural barrier against infection.”12
Epithelium-on oxygen-enriched cross-linking (Epioxa®, Glaukos Corporation, Aliso Viejo, CA, USA), recently approved by the FDA, uses a new proprietary topical formulation which is catalyzed by oxygen and a UV light source; it has been shown to halt keratoconus progression in a single administration without undergoing an invasive or painful procedure. In addition, unlike epithelium-off cross-linking, Epioxa does not require that disease progression be shown prior to treatment, thereby facilitating earlier intervention. Getting riboflavin through the intact epithelium without surgically debriding the cornea was a significant challenge. It took years of advances in drug formulation and delivery techniques, however the effort is paying off. Today’s epithelium-on oxygen-enriched method is showing efficacy comparable to the traditional epithelium-off approach12,13—with fewer tradeoffs for patients.
2. From Concept to Clinic: How Cross-Linking Reached Patients
Turning a promising idea into an approved therapy—especially for a rare disease like keratoconus—is rarely straightforward. The process is long, expensive, and often unpredictable. Scientific setbacks, financial risks, and regulatory red tape can all slow progress. Analogous to the corneal epithelium itself, each phase of development presents its own tough-to-penetrate barrier (e.g., scientific idea, pre-clinical testing, clinical development, regulatory hurdles, etc.) as the technology progresses from concept to clinic.
2.1. Science alone is not enough
Cross-linking didn’t start as a commercial project. It came out of basic science—careful lab work done in the 1990s at the University of Dresden.14-16 Researchers were curious: could UV light and riboflavin stiffen the cornea enough to stop keratoconus from progressing? Their early studies showed it was possible, however proving it works in a lab is a far cry from delivering a new treatment to patients.
That next step—getting cross-linking into clinics—required substantially more money: not just for the successful version, but to pay for all the dead-ends along the way. Without the promise of patent protection and the chance to eventually recoup their costs, private investors wouldn’t have gotten involved. Like many rare disease breakthroughs, the science alone wasn’t enough. It took robust commercial backing to bring cross-linking to patients.17,18
2.2. The roadblock before trials: preclinical testing
Once investors were on board, the next hurdle was proving the treatment was safe and effective—at least in the lab. That meant figuring out the precise UV-A intensity and frequency, how much riboflavin to use, and how long to expose the cornea to light. For the original epithelium-off method, this became known as the Dresden protocol, and it was carefully calibrated to stiffen the cornea without damaging deeper layers.19
However, epithelium-on cross-linking—using topical drops without epithelial removal—brought a tougher challenge. The corneal epithelium is naturally good at keeping things out, including riboflavin. Getting the drug to reach the right layer without removing the surface required new formulations, special additives, and lots of trial and error.20-23 And because cross-linking involves the eye—a delicate organ—researchers had to go further, testing for things like endothelial cell density (a key measure of corneal health)24-26 that aren't even considered in most systemic drug development.
Another complication: keratoconus does not naturally occur in animals.27 That made it harder to run realistic animal studies and slowed down the transition to human trials.
2.3. Conducting clinical trials for a rare eye disease is difficult
Once a therapy is ready for testing in people, the next challenge is running the clinical trials. For keratoconus, these challenges are substantial, possibly even more challenging than those encountered in the pre-clinical phase.
It is hard to find patients. The disease is rare, and people who have it are scattered geographically.28,29 That often means trials must recruit from many different sites, which adds cost and complexity.30,31
New therapies must prove they meet a sufficiently high bar of efficacy. With epithelium-off cross-linking already in use, epithelium-on trials couldn’t simply show that the treatment worked—they had to show it had significantly higher efficacy than the sham comparator—just as the original epithelium-off trial had done.32
Outcomes and disease progression may be unpredictable. Keratoconus progression is variable, with younger patients often progressing faster than older patients. This variability may impede standardized clinical trial protocols.
The results aren’t easy to measure. Researchers need specialized tools to track changes in maximum keratometry (Kmax) and other indicators of disease progression.33 Not every clinic has that equipment or expertise, especially outside of major academic or surgical centers.
Standard outcomes don’t always apply. Unlike common diseases like hypertension—where blood pressure is an easy, well-understood metric34—ophthalmologic diseases do not always have universally accepted endpoints. Researchers may have to create and validate new endpoints. For example, the FDA approved Luxturna, a gene therapy for a rare retinal disease, based in part on a novel test called the multi-luminance mobility test (MLMT), which assessed how well patients navigated obstacles under different lighting conditions.34,35
2.4. Navigating the regulatory maze
Even once the science and trials are in place, there’s still the challenge of regulation. In the U.S., the Orphan Drug Act provides valuable support such as tax breaks, waived fees, and market exclusivity for developers of rare disease treatments.35,36 But that doesn’t mean approval is easy. Because cross-linking is a drug-device combination, it receives extra scrutiny. The FDA expects companies to work closely with it to agree on trial design, outcome measures, and safety standards. In essence, companies have to build the road as they walk it, working hand-in-hand with regulators to define how the treatment should be tested and judged.37,38
3. The Unforgiving Economics of Rare Disease Therapy Development
Bringing any new therapy to market is both risky and expensive, but when it comes to rare diseases, the financial risks increase dramatically.28
3.1. Why small patient populations make costs harder to bear
Developing a new treatment means committing substantial money to research, clinical trials, manufacturing validation, and navigating the regulatory system.39,40 That’s true whether you're treating millions of people with high blood pressure or just a few thousand with a rare condition, such as keratoconus. But here’s the difference: in common diseases, those costs are spread out across huge patient populations. In rare diseases, they’re not. With far fewer patients to treat, the cost per person goes way up. The science might be equally promising, but the math behind it is far less forgiving.
3.2. How to make a return when there are so few patients?
At the heart of the problem is a simple return on investment equation: ROI=(Total revenue-Total costs)/(Total costs).
The "total costs" part can easily run into the hundreds of millions of dollars.41 But for rare diseases, the "total revenue" side of the equation is capped by the small number of people who will ever receive the therapy.
To make the numbers work, the price per treatment has to be high—sometimes uncomfortably high. That puts developers in a tough spot. On one hand, they need to charge enough to recoup their investment and attract future funding. On the other hand, payers and the public are rightly concerned about the rising costs of health care. It’s a real tension—one that industry can’t ignore and tries its best to navigate.28
The investment landscape adds another layer of complexity. While some venture capital firms are willing to back rare disease programs, they typically do so only when key conditions are met: strong patent protection, regulatory incentives, and a clear reimbursement path.42 If those pieces are missing, it becomes much harder to raise money. Even great science can stall if there’s no clear way to pay for it. This fact is particularly relevant given the continually changing dynamics of government grants, assistance from private foundations, and the groundwork role of academic institutions, all of whose support is often not able to be secured by medical technology companies.43
4. Justifying the Price Tag
4.1. Why pricing isn’t just about covering manufacturing costs
When it comes to new therapies—especially for rare diseases—the price tag covers much more than the cost of making the drug. Companies need to cover what they’ve spent on research, development, and all the failed attempts that came before the one that worked.44 For a rare disease therapy, they also need to provide technical training for staff and healthcare providers; technical support; inventory management; continuous product maintenance; next-generation innovation; and financial access programs. Even with incentives like market exclusivity, the math doesn’t always work out. More and more, payers want to see proof that a therapy delivers real, lasting results—not just in the clinic, but in the long run—before they commit to coverage.45
4.2. Value-based pricing: paying for what matters
That’s why there’s growing interest in value-based pricing—a model that ties the cost of a treatment to the real-world benefits it delivers, not simply to how much it costs to produce a new treatment.46,47 For a procedure like cross-linking, the value goes well beyond clinical success. It means helping people avoid surgery, stay independent, and live fuller, more productive lives. It also means added value to the provider, healthcare system, and/or payer in terms of efficiency, fewer postoperative visits, and fewer interventions or devices for visual rehabilitation (e.g., glasses and contact lenses).
Organizations like the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) have pointed out that traditional pricing models often undervalue treatments for rare diseases, especially when those models overlook things like disease severity, lack of alternatives, or broader societal impact.48 Payers seem to agree. A 2020 survey of U.S. insurers found that they were more open to higher prices for treatments that target rare or pediatric conditions, especially when the therapy offers a real advantage over what is already available.49
In that light, epithelium-on oxygen-enriched cross-linking makes a strong case. Yes, epithelium-off cross-linking is the existing gold standard, but epithelium-on oxygen-enriched cross-linking offers real benefits: less pain, lower risk of corneal haze, faster recovery, more rapid return to daily activities, less time away from work and school, ability to treat patients with thinner corneas, and a greater propensity of cross-linking-treated patients electing this treatment for their second eye in addition to their first. These are more than clinical conveniences; they’re patient-centered advantages that matter in a value-based system. And because keratoconus often hits people in their teens or twenties, a treatment that’s both effective and easy to tolerate can offer lifelong returns in education, employment, and independence.
4.3. Outcomes-based pricing
Some insurers are experimenting with outcomes-based contracts (also known as value-based drug pricing agreements)—arrangements where payment depends on how well the therapy performs over time.50 It’s a promising model, but it’s tricky in cases like keratoconus, where the most meaningful results—like avoiding a transplant—may take years to show up. For conditions that have variable rates of progression, measuring impact in a timeframe that satisfies payers is a challenge.
4.4. Why preserving vision saves more than just eyesight
Losing vision doesn’t just limit what people can see. It limits what they can do. The costs stack up quickly: doctor visits, assistive technology, home modifications, caregiving, and indirect costs such as lost productivity. One study estimated that vision loss costs the U.S. more than $134 billion a year—and the more severe the impairment, the more those costs rise.51
But there’s an even deeper impact. People who lose their sight may stop driving, working, or even recognizing loved ones’ faces.52 Depression, anxiety, and isolation are common.53,54 For working-age adults, it can mean early retirement. For teens or young adults, it might mean putting education or independence on hold, or pursuing a non-preferred career path.55 In other words, saving vision isn’t just about eyesight—it’s about helping people stay active, connected, and self-sufficient.
That’s where cross-linking comes in. By stopping keratoconus from getting worse, it helps many patients avoid corneal transplants, which can cost $13,000 to $27,000 per eye56 and often come with long-term complications (e.g. graft rejection, vision loss) and follow-up. The earlier cross-linking is performed, the better the odds of maintaining good vision through some of the most formative stages of life.
Epithelium-on oxygen-enriched cross-linking takes that value further. It’s more comfortable, has fewer complications, and works for patients who aren’t good candidates for epithelium-off cross-linking. That makes early treatment more accessible and more acceptable. And when patients can be treated earlier, with fewer tradeoffs, the long-term benefits ripple outward for families, health care systems, and society.
4.5. Turning value into access: codes, coverage, and communication
Even a therapy with strong clinical results and a fair price won’t succeed unless it gets reimbursed. That starts with the basics: billing codes, the language of payers. The drug component needs its own J-code (like J2787 for Photrexa), and the procedure itself needs a Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code that reflects the time, skill, and complexity involved.
Once the codes are in place, developers approach payers with a clear, well-supported case. For epithelium-on oxygen-enriched cross-linking, that means showing not just that it works, but how it compares to what’s already covered. The unique value here is its safety and comfort profile, especially for patients with thinner corneas. To back that up, health economic models are used to calculate the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and to project long-term cost-effectiveness.
Studies from the United States, United Kingdom, Brazil, the Netherlands, and Canada have found that epithelium-off cross-linking is cost-effective.57-61 The U.S. study found cross-linking was dominant (cost saving) relative to conventional care, owing to fewer penetrating keratoplasties and increased quality of life years (QALYs).57 The U.K. study concluded that cross-linking is “very likely to be cost effective, compared with standard management.”58 The Brazilian study concluded that “corneal cross-linking is a highly cost-effective intervention.”59 The Dutch study concluded that crosslinking is cost effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of 3 times the current gross domestic product (GDP) per capita.”60 The Canadian study concluded that “cross-linking is cost-effective compared with conventional management with PKP [penetrating keratoplasty].”61 A similar model for epithelium-on oxygen-enriched cross-linking may need to be developed—one that could help unlock payer coverage and bring this newer technology to more patients who need it.
4.6. It’s not just about the U.S.A.
Getting FDA approval is a huge milestone—but it’s just one piece of the puzzle. Around the world, reimbursement decisions are made by different agencies, using different criteria. In the U.K., the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence NICE looks at cost-per-QALY thresholds.62 In Germany, the G-BA evaluates how much better a new therapy is compared to what’s already on the market—and that rating helps determine the price.63
Japan’s Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA) applies a unique regulatory approach that emphasizes both clinical efficacy and post-marketing surveillance obligations. Therapies approved under Japan’s conditional early approval system may face additional scrutiny before full reimbursement is granted by the Central Social Insurance Medical Council (Chuikyo), which also negotiates pricing.64
In France, the Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS) conducts a two-tiered evaluation: clinical benefit (SMR) and clinical added value (ASMR). These ratings directly impact both access and pricing, with lower ASMR scores limiting reimbursement rates—even if the product is approved for use.65,66
These systems are designed to keep spending in check, but they can make things especially hard for rare disease therapies. With smaller patient populations and less clinical data, it’s harder to meet the usual thresholds. That means companies have to build customized market access plans for each country—creating evidence packages, value stories, and pricing strategies that match each system’s rules and expectations, and also that align with the desire to have novel treatments available to all (rather than just higher-income) segments of society.
5. Epithelium-On Cross-Linking’s Development Journey
5.1. The epithelial fortress
One of the biggest scientific challenges with epithelium-on cross-linking has always been the corneal epithelium itself. It’s like a tightly sealed barrier—designed to keep harmful substances out. That’s great for protecting the eye, but not as helpful when you’re trying to get the photosensitizing agent deep enough into the cornea to perform cross-linking.
To get around this, researchers had to build a sophisticated delivery system. That meant creating a specialized riboflavin formula packed with permeation enhancers—compounds that temporarily loosen the cell junctions and allow deeper drug penetration into tissue—without causing damage. The UV-A light source also had to be precisely tuned to ensure the drug was activated at the right depth, without harming the eye’s delicate inner layers.67,68 Getting all of that right took years of experimentation and iteration in both chemistry and optics.
5.2. Regulatory hurdles
Even once the science was in place, epithelium-on oxygen-enriched cross-linking still had to clear a long list of regulatory hurdles. Glaukos, the company leading development, ran two large, randomized Phase 3 trials at multiple sites. They weren’t just trying to prove that epithelium-on cross-linking worked—they had to prove it had sufficiently greater effect than its sham comparator.
To get everyone aligned early, Glaukos negotiated a Special Protocol Assessment (SPA) with the FDA. This is a formal agreement confirming that the trial design is strong enough to support an eventual approval application. These Phase 3 trials were designed as superiority studies; thus even if epithelium-on cross-linking offered better comfort and safety than the alternative, it still had to surpass the clinical bar of having significantly higher efficacy than the comparator.
Once the trials showed success, the next step was pulling together the New Drug Application (NDA)—a huge and complex regulatory filing requiring over 40,000 pages of supportive evidence. That effort happens in parallel with building a commercial strategy: scaling up manufacturing, educating doctors and insurers, and laying the groundwork for launch.
5.3. What it cost to get here
Determining the precise cost of developing epithelium-on oxygen-enriched cross-linking is challenging. However, by examining other rare disease drugs, it's estimated that the entire process—from initial preclinical studies through Phase 3 trials to launch preparation—can range from several hundred million to several billion dollars.44,69,70 This encompasses a variety of expenses, including preclinical testing (which often costs tens of millions of dollars),71 Phase 3 trials (which average hundreds of millions of dollars for rare diseases),72 the creation of specialized formulations and devices, scaling up manufacturing for a drug-device combination, and the economic modeling necessary to showcase value to global payers. Additionally, these figures do not cover costs associated with acquiring or licensing technologies that will undergo further research and development to prove their safety and efficacy to meet FDA standards for commercial approval. Once a product is approved, companies also face costs related to launching the product which requires building a commercial infrastructure designed to support the patient journey, including educational initiatives aimed at increasing awareness among patients and healthcare providers to support identification, diagnosis, and treatment of the disease.
These extrapolated figures reflect the broader economics of rare disease therapy development and help frame the commercial risk involved. Epithelium-on oxygen-enriched cross-linking shares key characteristics with these other high-investment rare disease programs.
There is no guarantee that the hefty investment will pay off. But it’s the kind of high-stakes investment required to bring a safer, more accessible therapy like epithelium-on oxygen-enriched cross-linking to market to advance patient care. The result is a treatment that matches the performance of its predecessor while removing many of the barriers that have kept patients from getting treated earlier and more comfortably.
6. Finding the Balance: Innovation, Access, and Economic Reality
The story of epithelium-on oxygen-enriched corneal cross-linking highlights one of the biggest questions in modern medicine: How do we support innovation without leaving patients behind? On one side, we need to keep developing better, safer, more effective treatments. On the other hand, we need to make sure those treatments are accessible to the people who need them irrespective of drug price.
6.1. The price of hope
It’s easy to look at the price of a new treatment and wonder why it’s so high in the current research structure environment. But behind every approved therapy is a long, expensive, and risky journey. For early-stage biotechnology startups, the chance to earn a return is what gets investors to take a leap of faith in the first place. For larger pharmaceutical companies, revenue from one success helps pay for the dozens of programs that don’t make it.
Either way, pricing isn’t just a number on a chart; it’s part of a system that keeps innovation going. If there’s no potential reward, the engine that drives progress slows down. That’s why pricing can’t be looked at in a vacuum. It’s not just about what something costs; it’s about what that cost enables.
6.2. Everyone has a role to play
Making therapies like epithelium-on oxygen-enriched cross-linking viable isn’t up to just one group. It takes real cooperation between industry, payers, providers, regulators, patients, and society at large. Each one plays a key part in making the system work.28,47
Industry needs to run strong clinical trials and build valid health economic models that show why a therapy is worth paying for. If a company wants premium pricing, it has to show premium value—and be open about the data behind it.
Payers can’t just focus on short-term budgets.28,36 For a disease like keratoconus, where the benefits of early treatment may take years to fully manifest, value- or outcomes-based models may make more sense. These let payers support innovation while still protecting their bottom line.
Providers are the ones on the front lines. They need to catch keratoconus early and refer patients before the damage is done. That means staying up to date on emerging treatments and adopting screening strategies that can catch cases sooner.73
Regulators and policymakers have a balancing act too—encouraging innovation without compromising safety. Adaptive frameworks can help—especially for complex products like drug-device combinations. So can making orphan drug incentives stronger and more predictable, particularly across international markets.
Patients and families aren’t just passive recipients. They can be powerful advocates and partners.18 By helping define what outcomes matter and by participating in research, they bring urgency and focus to clinical development.
And as a society, we have to be willing to invest in the early stages of discovery—especially when the market alone can’t carry the risk. Public-private partnerships, basic research funding, and global coordination all may play a part in turning scientific breakthroughs into real-world treatments.36
6.3. Access can’t be an afterthought
Innovation only matters if people can benefit from it. A therapy like epithelium-on oxygen-enriched cross-linking can transform lives—but not if it’s out of reach for the people who need it most.
Equity matters. That means recognizing that people with fewer resources should still have access to care that preserves their sight and independence. Without insurance coverage, patient assistance programs, or strong public reimbursement systems, high-cost therapies often go to those who are already well-insured—leaving others behind.28 We have already seen these factors in play in keratoconus treatment, where race, insurance status, and neighborhood have been shown to impact whether patients undergo cross-linking.74
When inequity happens, it’s not just a personal loss. It’s a failure of the system. Ensuring that new treatments reach all patients—regardless of income, insurance status, or geography is the real measure of whether innovation is working for the people it’s supposed to help.
7. Final Thoughts
The story of epithelium-on corneal cross-linking is about more than just a new treatment for keratoconus. It’s a window into the bigger challenge facing modern medicine: how to keep innovation moving forward while making sure the people who need it can actually afford and access it.
Bringing epithelium-on oxygen-enriched cross-linking from the lab to the clinic took years of work and investment—across chemistry, clinical trials, regulatory navigation, and business strategy. That journey reflects the hard reality of rare disease development: it’s expensive, risky, and complex. And that work continues to produce new advancements in keratoconus treatments. But it also shows what’s possible when science is matched with persistence and purpose.
Now, the focus shifts to the broader healthcare system. Will payers recognize the long-term value of a safer, more accessible vision-preserving treatment? Will regulators continue to support flexible frameworks for complex therapies? Will investors stay engaged if pricing remains uncertain?
The way epithelium-on oxygen-enriched cross-linking is handled—by insurers, by public programs, and by the market—could influence what comes next. If this therapy succeeds not just clinically, but economically and equitably, it may encourage the next wave of innovation for other rare conditions that are still waiting for solutions.
Ultimately, this is about more than just one product. It’s about whether we can build a health care system that rewards real breakthroughs without leaving patients behind. If we get that balance right, therapies like epithelium-on oxygen-enriched cross-linking won’t just preserve vision—they’ll help define the future of rare disease care.
The views and opinions expressed here may not necessarily represent those of Bryn Mawr Communications or Cataract & Refractive Surgery Today
1. Rabinowitz YS. Keratoconus. Surv Ophthalmol. Elsevier; 1998 Jan 1;42(4):297–319.
2. Gomes JAP, Tan D, Rapuano CJ, Belin MW, Ambrósio R, Guell JL, Malecaze F, Nishida K, Sangwan VS, Group of Panelists for the Global Delphi Panel of Keratoconus and Ectatic Diseases. Global consensus on keratoconus and ectatic diseases. Cornea. 2015 Apr;34(4):359–69.
3. keratoconus – National Organization for Rare Disorders [Internet]. Available from: https://rarediseases.org/mondo-disease/keratoconus/ [accessed June 27, 2025].
4. Kennedy RH, Bourne WM, Dyer JA. A 48-year clinical and epidemiologic study of keratoconus. Am J Ophthalmol. 1986 Mar 15;101(3):267–73.
5. Deshmukh R, Ong ZZ, Rampat R, Alió Del Barrio JL, Barua A, Ang M, Mehta JS, Said DG, Dua HS, Ambrósio R, Ting DSJ. Management of keratoconus: an updated review. Front Med. 2023;10:1212314.
6. Wollensak G, Spoerl E, Seiler T. Riboflavin/ultraviolet-a-induced collagen crosslinking for the treatment of keratoconus. Am J Ophthalmol. 2003 May;135(5):620–7.
7. van der Valk Bouman ES, Pump H, Borsook D, Severinsky B, Wisse RP, Saeed HN, Moulton EA. Pain mechanisms and management in corneal cross-linking: a review. BMJ Open Ophthalmol. 2021;6(1):e000878.
8. Borchert GA, Kandel H, Watson SL. Epithelium-on versus epithelium-off corneal collagen crosslinking for keratoconus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Albrecht Von Graefes Arch Klin Exp Ophthalmol. 2024 Jun;262(6):1683–92.
9. Soeters N, Wisse RPL, Godefrooij DA, Imhof SM, Tahzib NG. Transepithelial versus epithelium-off corneal cross-linking for the treatment of progressive keratoconus: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Ophthalmol. 2015 May;159(5):821-828.e3.
10. Stern GA, Weitzenkorn D, Valenti J. Adherence of Pseudomonas aeruginosa to the mouse cornea. Epithelial v stromal adherence. Arch Ophthalmol Chic Ill 1960. 1982 Dec;100(12):1956–8.
11. Klotz SA, Au YK, Misra RP. A partial-thickness epithelial defect increases the adherence of Pseudomonas aeruginosa to the cornea. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1989 Jun;30(6):1069–74.
12. Nughays RO, Bazayd AS, Alshamekh LA, Alshammari RA, Alenezi MA, Dahlan HY, Alsubhi JA, Alshammri SG, AlQurashi NA, Aldajani AH, Alrammah AH, Alenezi MN, Almutairi AA, Alomayri AF, Alghamdi S. Efficacy and Safety of Epi-On vs Epi-Off Corneal Cross-Linking in Corneal Ectasia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Clin Ophthalmol Auckl NZ. 2025;19:1531–41.
13. D’Oria F, Palazón A, Alio JL. Corneal collagen cross-linking epithelium-on vs. epithelium-off: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eye Vis Lond Engl. 2021 Sep 1;8(1):34.
14. Spoerl E, Huhle M, Seiler T. Induction of Cross-links in Corneal Tissue. Exp Eye Res. 1998 Jan 1;66(1):97–103.
15. Spörl E, Huhle M, Kasper M, Seiler T. [Increased rigidity of the cornea caused by intrastromal cross-linking]. Ophthalmol Z Dtsch Ophthalmol Ges. 1997 Dec;94(12):902–6.
16. Spoerl E, Huhle M, Seiler T. Induction of cross-links in corneal tissue. Exp Eye Res. 1998 Jan;66(1):97–103.
17. Neez E, Gentilini A, Hutchings A. Addressing unmet needs in extremely rare and paediatric-onset diseases: how the biopharmaceutical innovation model can help identify current issues and find potential solutions. July 2021. Available online from: https://dolon.com/rare-knowledge/publications/addressing-unmet-needs-in-extremely-rare-and-paediatric-onset-diseases [accessed September 15, 2025].
18. Kaufmann P, Pariser AR, Austin C. From scientific discovery to treatments for rare diseases – the view from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences – Office of Rare Diseases Research. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2018 Nov 6;13(1):196.
19. Spoerl E, Mrochen M, Sliney D, Trokel S, Seiler T. Safety of UVA-riboflavin cross-linking of the cornea. Cornea. 2007 May;26(4):385–9.
20. Conde Penedo A, Díaz Tomé V, Fernández Ferreiro A, González Barcia M, Otero Espinar FJ. Enhancement in corneal permeability of riboflavin using cyclodextrin derivates complexes as a previous step to transepithelial cross-linking. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2021 May 1;162:12–22.
21. Wu D, Lim DKA, Lim BXH, Wong N, Hafezi F, Manotosh R, Lim CHL. Corneal Cross-Linking: The Evolution of Treatment for Corneal Diseases. Front Pharmacol. 2021 Jul 19;12:686630.
22. Kamaev P, Friedman MD, Sherr E, Muller D. Photochemical kinetics of corneal cross-linking with riboflavin. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012 Apr 30;53(4):2360–7.
23. Raiskup F, Hoyer A, Spoerl E. Permanent corneal haze after riboflavin-UVA-induced cross-linking in keratoconus. J Refract Surg Thorofare NJ 1995. 2009 Sep;25(9):S824-828.
24. Lombardo M, Bernava GM, Serrao S, Roszkowska AM, Lombardo G. Predicting corneal cross-linking treatment efficacy with real-time assessment of corneal riboflavin concentration. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2023 Jun;49(6):635–41.
25. Mazzotta CFerrise M, Guido G, Gennaro, Meduri A, Chemically-Boosted Corneal Cross-Linking for the Treatment of Keratoconus through a Riboflavin 0.25% Optimized Solution with High Superoxide Anion Release. MDPI AG; 2021;1324.
26. Cagini C, Riccitelli F, Messina M, Piccinelli F, Torroni G, Said D, Al Maazmi A, Dua HS. Epi-off-lenticule-on corneal collagen cross-linking in thin keratoconic corneas. Int Ophthalmol. 2020 Dec 1;40(12):3403–12. doi: 10.1007/s10792-020-01526-x
27. Hadvina R, Estes A, Liu Y. Animal Models for the Study of Keratoconus. Cells. 2023 Nov 22;12(23):2681.
28. Pearson C, Schapiro L, Pearson SD. The next generation of rare disease drug policy: ensuring both innovation and affordability. J Comp Eff Res. 2022 Oct;11(14):999–1010.
29. Murphy M. Rare Diseases: Meeting the Unique Challenges of Orphan Drug Development [Internet]. Applied Clinical Trials. 2016 Available online from: https://www.appliedclinicaltrialsonline.com/view/rare-diseases-meeting-unique-challenges-orphan-drug-development [accessed July 3, 2025].
30. Hedley V, Leary R, Sen A, Irvin A, Heslop E, Straub V. Performing clinical drug trials in children with a rare disease. August 5, 2024; pp. 483–507. Abstract available online at: https://eprints.ncl.ac.uk/290636 [accessed September 15, 2025].
31. Bell SA, Tudur Smith C. A comparison of interventional clinical trials in rare versus non-rare diseases: an analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2014 Nov 26;9(1):170.
32. Hersh PS, Stulting RD, Muller D, Durrie DS, Rajpal RK, United States Crosslinking Study Group. United States Multicenter Clinical Trial of Corneal Collagen Crosslinking for Keratoconus Treatment. Ophthalmology. 2017 Sep;124(9):1259–70.
33. Hashemi H, Amanzadeh K, Seyedian M, Zeraati H, Roberts CJ, Mehravaran S, Ambrósio R, Vinciguerra R, Vinciguerra P, Asgari S. Accelerated and Standard Corneal Cross-Linking Protocols in Patients with Down Syndrome: A Non-inferiority Contralateral Randomized Trial. Ophthalmol Ther. 2020 Dec;9(4):1011–21.
34. James PA, Oparil S, Carter BL, Cushman WC, Dennison-Himmelfarb C, Handler J, Lackland DT, LeFevre ML, MacKenzie TD, Ogedegbe O, Smith SC Jr, Svetkey LP, Taler SJ, Townsend RR, Wright JT Jr, Narva AS, Ortiz E. 2014 Evidence-Based Guideline for the Management of High Blood Pressure in Adults: Report From the Panel Members Appointed to the Eighth Joint National Committee (JNC 8). JAMA. 2014 Feb 5;311(5):507–20.
35. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2023, April 27). Designating an orphan product: Drugs and biologic. Available online at: https://www.fda.gov/industry/medical-products-rare-diseases-and-conditions/designating-orphan-product-drugs-and-biological-products [accessed September 15, 2025].
36. Rodriguez-Monguio R, Spargo T, Seoane-Vazquez E. Ethical imperatives of timely access to orphan drugs: is possible to reconcile economic incentives and patients’ health needs? Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2017 Jan 5;12(1):1.
37. Principles of Premarket Pathways for Combination Products Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff. January 2022. Available online at: https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/principles-premarket-pathways-combination-products [accessed September 15, 2025].
38. Brown F, Vargas M, Stanisic S, Fatzinger G, Iliach O. Impact of changes in regulatory framework on approval of medicines for rare diseases and applicability to market access policies. Front Med. 2025 Apr 2;12:1474087.
39. Sertkaya A, Beleche T, Jessup A, Sommers BD. Costs of Drug Development and Research and Development Intensity in the US, 2000-2018. JAMA Netw Open. 2024 Jun 28;7(6):e2415445.
40. Jayasundara K, Hollis A, Krahn M, Mamdani M, Hoch JS, Grootendorst P. Estimating the clinical cost of drug development for orphan versus non-orphan drugs. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2019 Jan 10;14(1):12.
41. Jayasundara K, Hollis A, Krahn M, Mamdani M, Hoch JS, Grootendorst P. Estimating the clinical cost of drug development for orphan versus non-orphan drugs. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2019 Jan 10;14(1):12.
42. Senior M, Hadjivasiliou A. Orphan Drug Report. Evaluate; April 27, 2022. Available online at: https://www.evaluate.com/thought-leadership/orphan-drug-2022-report/ [accessed September 15, 2025].
43. Katakowski JA, López JC. Drug development for neglected ultra-rare diseases of no commercial interest: Challenges and opportunities. Drug Discov Today. 2025 Apr 1;30(4):104346.
44. DiMasi JA, Grabowski HG, Hansen RW. Innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: New estimates of R&D costs. J Health Econ. 2016 May;47:20–33.
45. Bharmal M, Katsoulis ,Ioannis, Chang ,Jane, Graham ,Alex, Stavropoulou, Apostolina, Jhingran ,Priti, and Pashos CL. Real-world evidence in the reassessment of oncology therapies: payer perceptions from five countries. Future Oncol. Taylor & Francis; 2024 Jul 2;20(21):1467–78.
46. World Health Organization. Value-based pricing [Internet]. n.d. Available online at: https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/341896/9789240024595-eng.pdf [accessed September 15, 2025].
47. Garrison LP, Jackson T, Paul D, Kenston M. Value-Based Pricing for Emerging Gene Therapies: The Economic Case for a Higher Cost-Effectiveness Threshold. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2019 Jul;25(7):10.18553/jmcp.2019.18378.
48. ICER. 2020-2023 Value Assessment Framework [Internet]. January 31, 2020 (updated October 23, 2020). Available online at: https://icer.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/ICER_2020_2023_VAF_102220.pdf [accessed September 15, 2025].
49. Parece A, Majewski M, Backor K, Black J. Pricing for rare disease and curative therapies: What’s fair? CRA; June 2, 2020. Available online at: https://www.pharmexec.com/view/pricing-rare-disease-and-curative-therapies-what-s-fair [accessed September 15, 2025].
50. Seeley E, Kesselheim AS. Outcomes-Based Pharmaceutical Contracts: An Answer to High U.S. Drug Spending? 27 September 2017.
51. Rein DB, Wittenborn JS, Zhang P, Sublett F, Lamuda PA, Lundeen EA, Saaddine J. The Economic Burden of Vision Loss and Blindness in the United States. Ophthalmology. 2022 Apr;129(4):369–78.
52. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Health and Medicine Division; Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice; Committee on Public Health Approaches to Reduce Vision Impairment and Promote Eye Health; Welp A, Woodbury RB, McCoy MA, et al., editors. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2016 Sep 15.
53. Heesterbeek TJ, van der Aa HPA, van Rens GHMB, Twisk JWR, van Nispen RMA. The incidence and predictors of depressive and anxiety symptoms in older adults with vision impairment: a longitudinal prospective cohort study. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt J Br Coll Ophthalmic Opt Optom. 2017 Jul;37(4):385–98.
54. Klauke S, Sondocie C, Fine I. The impact of low vision on social function: The potential importance of lost visual social cues. J Optom. 2023;16(1):3–11.
55. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Health and Medicine Division; Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice; Committee on Public Health Approaches to Reduce Vision Impairment and Promote Eye Health; Welp A, Woodbury RB, McCoy MA, et al., editors. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2016 Sep 15.
National Academies Press (US); 2016.
56. Cornea Transplants [Internet]. NewYork-Presbyterian. [cited 2025 Jun 30]. Available from: https://www.nyp.org/transplant/cornea-transplant
57. Lindstrom RL, Berdahl JP, Donnenfeld ED, Thompson V, Kratochvil D, Wong C, Falvey H, Lytle G, Botteman MF, Carter JA. Corneal cross-linking versus conventional management for keratoconus: a lifetime economic model. J Med Econ. Taylor & Francis; 2021 Jan 1;24(1):410–20.
58. Salmon HA, Chalk D, Stein K, Frost NA. Cost effectiveness of collagen crosslinking for progressive keratoconus in the UK NHS. Eye. Nature Publishing Group; 2015 Nov;29(11):1504–11.
59. Hansen LO, Garcia R, Torricelli AAM, Bechara SJ. Cost-Effectiveness of Corneal Collagen Crosslinking for Progressive Keratoconus: A Brazilian Unified Health System Perspective. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2024 Nov 26;21(12):1569.
60. Godefrooij DA, Mangen MJJ, Chan E, O’Brart DPS, Imhof SM, Wit GA de, Wisse RPL. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Corneal Collagen Crosslinking for Progressive Keratoconus. Ophthalmology. Elsevier; 2017 Oct 1;124(10):1485–95.
61. Leung VC, Pechlivanoglou P, Chew HF, Hatch W. Corneal Collagen Cross-Linking in the Management of Keratoconus in Canada: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Ophthalmology. Elsevier; 2017 Aug 1;124(8):1108–19.
62. McCabe C, Claxton K, Culyer AJ. The NICE cost-effectiveness threshold: what it is and what that means. PharmacoEconomics. 2008;26(9):733–44.
63. Benefit Assessment of Medicinal Products | G-BA [Internet]. Available online from: https://www.g-ba.de/english/benefitassessment/ [accessed September 15, 2025].
64. Price setting of medicines and medical devices [Internet]. C2H | Center for Outcomes Research and Economic Evaluation for Health. [cited 2025 Sep 15]. Available online from: https://c2h.niph.go.jp/en/assessment/price-setting/ [accessed September 15, 2025].
65. Haute Autorité de Santé. Pricing & Reimbursement of drugs and HTA policies in France [Internet]. 2014 Mar. Available online at: https://www.has-sante.fr/upload/docs/application/pdf/2014-03/pricing_reimbursement_of_drugs_and_hta_policies_in_france.pdf [accessed September 15, 2025].
66. RAIMOND VC, FELDMAN WB, ROME BN, KESSELHEIM AS. Why France Spends Less Than the United States on Drugs: A Comparative Study of Drug Pricing and Pricing Regulation. Milbank Q. 2021 Mar;99(1):240–72.
67. Hafezi F. Corneal Cross-Linking: Epi-On. Cornea. 2022 Oct 1;41(10):1203–4.
68. Hafezi F, Kling S, Hafezi NL, Aydemir ME, Lu NJ, Hillen M, Knyazer B, Awwad S, Mazzotta C, Kollros L, Torres-Netto EA. Corneal cross-linking. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2025 Jan;104:101322.
69. Wouters OJ, McKee M, Luyten J. Estimated Research and Development Investment Needed to Bring a New Medicine to Market, 2009-2018. JAMA. 2020 Mar 3;323(9):844–53.
70. Schlander M, Hernandez-Villafuerte K, Cheng CY, Mestre-Ferrandiz J, Baumann M. How Much Does It Cost to Research and Develop a New Drug? A Systematic Review and Assessment. Pharmacoeconomics. 2021;39(11):1243–69.
71. The Staggering Cost of Drug Development: A Look at the Numbers – GreenField Chemical Inc. [Internet]. August 10, 2023. Available online from: https://greenfieldchemical.com/2023/08/10/the-staggering-cost-of-drug-development-a-look-at-the-numbers/ [accessed September 15, 2025].
72. Moore TJ, Zhang H, Anderson G, Alexander GC. Estimated Costs of Pivotal Trials for Novel Therapeutic Agents Approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, 2015-2016. JAMA Intern Med. 2018 Nov 1;178(11):1451–7.
73. EveryLife Foundation for Rare Diseases. The Cost of Delayed Diagnosis in Rare Disease: A Health Economic Study [Internet]. September 14, 2023. Available online at: https://everylifefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/EveryLife-Cost-of-Delayed-Diagnosis-in-Rare-Disease_Final-Full-Study-Report_0914223.pdf [accessed September 15, 2025].
74. Erukulla R, Soleimani M, Woodward M, Karnik N, Joslin C, McMahon T, Scanzera A, Shorter E, Yoon H, Cortina M, de la Cruz J, Jain S, Saeed HN, Tu E, Rosenblatt M, Djalilian A. Socioeconomic and Demographic Disparities in Keratoconus Treatment. Am J Ophthalmol. 2025 Mar;271:424-435. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2024.11.023. Epub 2024 Nov 30. PMID: 39617116.
IMPORTANT SAFETY INFORMATION:
Contraindications
EPIOXA™ HD and EPIOXA™ are contraindicated in patients with known hypersensitivity to benzalkonium chloride (BAC) or any ingredients in EPIOXA HD and EPIOXA. Epithelium-on corneal collagen cross-linking is contraindicated in aphakic and pseudophakic patients without a UV-blocking intraocular lens.
Warnings and Precautions
Corneal collagen cross-linking should be used with caution in patients with a history of herpetic keratitis due to the potential for reactivation of herpes keratitis.
Adverse Reactions
The most common adverse reaction was conjunctival hyperaemia (31%). Other adverse reactions, occurring in 5% to 25% of eyes included: corneal opacity (haze), photophobia, punctate keratitis, eye pain, eye irritation, increased lacrimation, corneal epithelium defect, eyelid oedema, corneal striae, visual acuity reduced, dry eye, and anterior chamber flare.
INDICATIONS AND USAGE
EPIOXA™ HD (riboflavin 5’-phosphate ophthalmic solution) 0.239% and EPIOXA™ (riboflavin 5’-phosphate ophthalmic solution) 0.177% are photoenhancers indicated for use in epithelium-on corneal collagen cross-linking for the treatment of keratoconus in adults and pediatric patients aged 13 years and older, in conjunction with the O2n™ System and the Boost Goggles®.
Please see full Prescribing Information for EPIOXA HD and EPIOXA.
You are encouraged to report all side effects to the FDA. Visit www.fda.gov/medwatch, or call 1-800-FDA-1088. You may also call Glaukos at 1-888-404-1644.
