Search

Objective: No consensus exists on the ideal methodology to evaluate the economic impact and value of new, potentially curative gene therapies. We aimed to identify and describe published methodologic recommendations for the economic evaluation of gene therapies and assess whether these recommendations have been applied in published evaluations. Methods: This study was conducted in three stages: a systematic literature review of methodologic recommendations for economic evaluation of gene therapies; an assessment of the appropriateness of recommendations; and a review to assess the degree to which the recommendations were applied in published evaluations. Results: A total of 2,888 references were screened, 83 articles were reviewed to assess eligibility, and 20 papers were included. Fifty recommendations were identified, and 21 reached consensus thresholds. Most evaluations were based on naive treatment comparisons and did not apply consensus recommendations. Innovative payment mechanisms for gene therapies were rarely considered. The only widely applied recommendations related to modeling choices and methods. Conclusions: Methodological recommendations for economic evaluations of gene therapies are generally not being followed. Assessing the applicability and impact of the recommendations from this study may facilitate the implementation of consensus recommendations in future evaluations.

Introduction The economic and clinical burden of haemophilia A is high. Primary prophylaxis with factor VIII replacement therapy is the recognised standard of care, but the emergence of non-factor therapies, such as emicizumab, is extending treatment options for people with haemophilia A. Aim There are currently no direct comparisons of efficacy or cost between recombinant factor FVIII Fc-fusion protein efmoroctocog alfa (a recombinant factor FVIII Fc-fusion protein referred to herein as rFVIIIFc) and emicizumab; therefore, a cost-effectiveness model was developed to compare prophylactic treatment with rFVIIIFc versus emicizumab in patients with haemophilia A without inhibitors in the UK. Methods The cost-effectiveness model was based on a matching-adjusted indirect comparison and included male patients, aged ≥12 years, with haemophilia A without inhibitors. The model was designed as a Markov process with a flexible lifelong time horizon, and cost-effectiveness was presented as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Base-case analysis and sensitivity analyses (including scenario analyses, one-way deterministic sensitivity analysis [DSA] and probability sensitivity analysis [PSA]) were performed using the following treatment strategies: individualised prophylaxis with rFVIIIFc and prophylaxis with emicizumab administered once weekly (scenario analyses used regimens of once every 2 weeks or once every 4 weeks). Results Base-case analysis, DSA and PSA indicated that, compared with emicizumab administered once weekly, rFVIIIFc individualised prophylaxis was the dominant treatment strategy, with lower costs, a greater number of quality-adjusted life years, and a lower number of bleeds. Conclusions rFVIIIFc has proven efficacy and is cost-effective compared with emicizumab, providing clinicians with a viable treatment option to improve the health outcomes for adults and adolescents with haemophilia A in the UK.

INTRODUCTION: Recurrent bleeding in severe haemophilia B causes painful hemarthroses and reduces capacity for physical activity. Recombinant factor IX Fc fusion protein (rFIXFc) prophylaxis results in low annualised bleeding rates, with the potential to improve patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL). AIM: To present a post hoc analysis of data from B-LONG describing change over time in patient-reported outcomes associated with pain and physical activity. METHODS: Patients (≥12 years) who received weekly dose-adjusted or interval-adjusted rFIXFc prophylaxis and completed the Haemophilia-Specific QoL questionnaire for adolescents (Haemo-QoL) or adults (Haem-A-QoL) at baseline (BL) and end of study (EoS). Individual level changes in items of the 'Physical Health' and 'Sports and Leisure' domains, categorised as 'never/rarely/seldom' or 'sometimes/often/all the time', were analysed using McNemar's test to compare distribution of responses at EoS versus BL. RESULTS: At EoS versus BL, a significantly greater proportion of patients did not experience painful swellings (64% vs. 44%; P = .004), painful joints (44% vs. 28%; P = .003) or pain when moving (54% vs. 41%; P = .026). Additionally, at EoS versus BL, patients were less likely to avoid participating in sports like football (30% vs. 8%; P = .002), avoid sports due to their haemophilia (47% vs. 27%; P = .007), or experience difficulty walking as far as they wanted (63% vs. 43%; P = .001). The proportion of patients who played sports as much as the general population was numerically increased (52% vs. 37%; P = .033) at EoS versus BL. CONCLUSION: Results of the analysis suggest that over time, rFIXFc prophylaxis is associated with significant improvements in pain and physical functioning. This contributes to previous evidence of overall HRQoL improvements in patients with haemophilia B treated with rFIXFc.

Background and objective: A cost-minimization model was developed to compare recombinant factor VIII Fc (rFVIIIFc) and emicizumab as prophylaxis for hemophilia A without inhibitors. Methods: The model was based on 100 patients from the healthcare payer perspective in the UK, France, Italy, Spain, and Germany (5-year time horizon). Costs included: drug acquisition; emicizumab wastage by bodyweight (manufacturer’s dosing recommendations); and additional FVIII for breakthrough bleeds. Scenario analyses (UK only): reduced emicizumab dosing frequency; and emicizumab maximum wastage. Results: Total incremental 5-year savings for rFVIIIFc rather than emicizumab use range from €89,320,131 to €149,990,408 in adolescents/adults (≥12 years) and €173,417,486 to €253,240,465 in children (<12 years). Emicizumab wastage accounts for 6% of its total cost in adolescents/adults and 26% in children. Reducing the emicizumab dosing frequency reduces the incremental cost savings with rFVIIIFc, but these remain substantial (adolescents/adults, >€92 million; children >€32 million). Maximum emicizumab wastage increases by 86% and 106%, respectively, increasing the incremental cost savings with rFVIIIFc to €125,352,125 and €105,872,727, respectively. Conclusion: Based on cost-minimization modeling, rFVIIIFc use for hemophilia A prophylaxis in patients without inhibitors is associated with substantial cost savings in Europe, reflecting not only higher acquisition costs of emicizumab, but also other costs including wastage related to available vial sizes.