Search

Objectives: Health technology assessment (HTA) of advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs), such as high-cost and one-time cell and gene therapies, is particularly challenging. Outcomes-based agreements (OBAs) are a potential solution to mitigate the risks while providing access to patients but are not widely used across Europe. This study aimed to develop policy recommendations to support the acceptability and implementation of OBAs in Europe., Methods: A policy sandbox approach was used to engage with stakeholders and explore how HTA organizations can support reimbursement decisions regarding OBAs for ATMPs. A panel of 38 experts from across the European region was convened in 2 workshops, representing payers, HTA organizations, patients, registries, and an industry trade body., Results: Policy recommendations were developed to support the appropriate consideration of OBAs for reimbursing highly uncertain technologies, such as ATMPs. If a positive HTA recommendation cannot be made at the proposed price, then a simple price discount reflecting the uncertainty is preferred over complex solutions such as OBAs. If an OBA is pursued, it should be designed collaboratively with all stakeholders to understand data collection feasibility and minimize burden to patients and providers. Payers are encouraged to approach OBAs as a tool for informed decision making, including a readiness to make negative reimbursement decisions based on unfavorable evidence., Conclusions: The study presents a policy framework for using OBAs in reimbursement decisions. OBAs must be carefully designed, focusing on appropriateness and the burden of implementation. The relevant authorities should be committed to making decisions in light of the resulting evidence., Competing Interests: Author Disclosures Author disclosure forms can be accessed below in the Supplemental Material section., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Casgevy, the world's first approved CRISPR-based cell therapy, has been priced at $2.2 million per patient. Although this hefty price tag was widely anticipated, the extremely high cost of this and other cell and gene therapies poses a major ethical issue in terms of equitable access and global health. In this Perspective, we argue that lowering the prices of future CRISPR therapies is an urgent ethical imperative. Although we focus on Casgevy as a case study, much of our analysis can be extrapolated to the controversies over affordable access to other gene and cell therapies. First, we explain why this first-of-its-kind CRISPR therapy might be so expensive. We then analyze the ethical issues of equity and global health of early CRISPR treatments. Next, we discuss potential solutions to lower the prices of CRISPR gene therapies. We conclude that the approval of CRISPR transforms our obligations of justice and compels us to bring future gene therapies to the maximum possible number of patients with serious genetic diseases at affordable prices.

Background: In 2022-2023, the US Food and Drug Administration approved 2 novel gene therapies, valoctocogene roxaparvovec and etranacogene dezaparavovec, for hemophilia A and B, respectively. These one-time-administered gene therapies have been marketed at prices that create financial challenges for payers and patients. Understanding the magnitude and uncertainties around the long-term value of these therapies and how they can potentially relate to managed care practices is of high interest to the payer and patient community., Objective: To conduct a systematic review of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) studies to assess (1) the long-term value of valoctocogene roxaparvovec and etranacogene dezaparavovec and (2) the relevance and validity of the underlying data and assumptions used in the CEA models and discuss how they relate to the challenges identified for CEAs of gene therapies., Methods: A systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies of novel hemophilia A and B gene therapy was conducted. PubMed and Embase were searched for published studies from inception to January 12, 2024. Original research articles published in English that conducted a CEA on gene therapy treatments for hemophilia A and B, with a comparison of incremental costs and health effects, were considered. Critical appraisal of the quality of reporting and the underlying modeling assumptions were conducted to assess the relevance and validity of the results., Results: Two hundred thirty-eight studies were identified, of which 4 met the inclusion criteria. Three studies were conducted from a US health care perspective and 1 from a Dutch societal perspective. Despite the high upfront costs of the gene therapies, all included studies' (3 hemophilia A and 1 hemophilia B) modeled results showed that gene therapies had lower overall costs and better health outcomes compared with factor concentrate replacement therapies and emicizumab. The results were driven by the assumption that gene therapies will have a durable effect of at least 10 years and offset the high cost of the current standard of care. The modeled health improvements varied substantially across studies, showing that the long-term value is sensitive to varying clinical and economic assumptions., Conclusions: The novel hemophilia gene therapy treatments can potentially be a cost-effective use of treatment resources if the treatment effects are durable over time. To reduce the risk for payers while still facilitating patient access, outcomes-based agreements similar to what has recently been proposed by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services for sickle-cell therapies are well supported.

Twenty genetic therapies have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration to date, a number that now includes the first CRISPR genome-editing therapy for sickle cell disease-CASGEVY (exagamglogene autotemcel, Vertex Pharmaceuticals). This extraordinary milestone is widely celebrated owing to the promise for future genome-editing treatments of previously intractable genetic disorders and cancers. At the same time, such genetic therapies are the most expensive drugs on the market, with list prices exceeding US$4 million per patient. Although all approved cell and gene therapies trace their origins to academic or government research institutions, reliance on for-profit pharmaceutical companies for subsequent development and commercialization results in prices that prioritize recouping investments, paying for candidate product failures and meeting investor and shareholder expectations. To increase affordability and access, sustainable discovery-to-market alternatives are needed that address system-wide deficiencies. Here we present recommendations of a multidisciplinary task force assembled to chart such a path. We describe a pricing structure that, once implemented, could reduce per-patient cost tenfold and propose a business model that distributes responsibilities while leveraging diverse funding sources. We also outline how academic licensing provisions, manufacturing innovation and supportive regulations can reduce cost and enable broader patient treatment., (© 2024. Springer Nature Limited.)

Patients with devastating illnesses demonstrate incredible courage in battling their disease. Innovative cell and gene therapies (CGTs), built on decades of research, are changing the lives of those who suffer from conditions ranging from cancer to sickle cell disease to neurologic diseases. Although hailed for their promise and recognized for benefits that will exceed the costs, the high prices of CGTs ($300 thousand to $4 million per dose) leave these therapies out of reach for many. This accessibility problem will only be solved if academia, industry, investors, funders, regulators, and advocacy groups work together to put CGT breakthroughs in the hands of all who stand to benefit.

Background and Objective: Treatment of sickle cell disease (SCD) has traditionally focused on symptomatic and preventative care. Recent advances in novel therapeutic developments, likely to be orphan-designated, are anticipated to carry a substantial price tag. This study assesses the potential budget impact of adopting disease-modifying treatments, crizanlizumab and voxelotor, and pioneering CRISPR gene-edited therapy, CTX001, in the Belgian healthcare system., Methods: The perspective of the Belgian healthcare payer (RIZIV-INAMI including patient copayments), a 5-year horizon with a 2-10% uptake of disease-modifying interventions, and a 2% uptake of CTX001 were considered. Data, encompassing target population, current (chronic and acute management, curative hematopoietic stem cell transplantation) and new (crizanlizumab, voxelotor, and CTX001) interventions, clinical effectiveness, adverse events, healthcare resource utilization, and associated costs, were gathered through a comprehensive literature review (first phase) and two Delphi panels involving hematologists (second phase). The cost difference between a "world with and without crizanlizumab, voxelotor, and CTX001" was calculated to obtain the budget impact. Three scenario analyses were conducted: a 5-13% and 4% uptake analysis, a 10-18% and 8% uptake analysis, respectively for disease-modifying treatments (crizanlizumab and voxelotor) and CTX001, and a 0% crizanlizumab uptake and managed entry agreements analysis . A ± 20% univariate sensitivity analysis was performed to test the robustness of the analysis., Results: The total five-year cumulative budget impact was estimated at €30,024,968, with 91% attributed to drug acquisition costs. The largest budget impact share was for CTX001 (€25,575,150), while crizanlizumab (€2,301,095) and voxelotor (€2,148,723) was relatively small. In scenarios one and three, a two-fold increase of the cumulative budget impact to €60,731,772 and a four-fold increase to €120,846,256 from the base case was observed. In scenario three, this budget impact decreased by 63% to €11,212,766. Patient population size, number of treated patients, and drug costs influenced the analysis the most, while discontinuation, acute crisis, and adverse event rates had comparatively minimal impact., Conclusions: Belgian decision-makers may consider alternative financing models, such as outcome-based risk-sharing agreements or annuities, to ensure sustainable coverage of these treatments. This study adheres to recommended practices for assessing budget impact of orphan drugs, distinguishing it from earlier studies with potentially weaker methodologies., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

Objectives: To illustrate the financial consequences of implementing different managed entry agreements (managed entry agreements for the Dutch healthcare system for autologous gene therapy atidarsagene autotemcel [Libmeldy]), while also providing a first systematic guidance on how to construct managed entry agreements to aid future reimbursement decision making and create patient access to high-cost, one-off potentially curative therapies., Methods: Three payment models were compared: (1) an arbitrary 60% price discount, (2) an outcome-based spread payment with discounts, and (3) an outcome-based spread payment linked to a willingness to pay model with discounts. Financial consequences were estimated for full responders (A), patients responding according to the predicted clinical pathway presented in health technology assessment reports (B), and unstable responders (C). The associated costs for an average patient during the time frame of the payment agreement, the total budget impact, and associated benefits expressed in quality-adjusted life-years of the patient population were calculated., Results: When patients responded according to the predicted clinical pathway presented in health technology assessment reports (scenario B), implementing outcome-based reimbursement models (models 2 and 3) had lower associated budget impacts while gaining similar benefits compared with the discount (scenario 1, €8.9 million to €6.6 million vs €9.2 million). In the case of unstable responders (scenario C), costs for payers are lower in the outcome-based scenarios (€4.1 million and €3.0 million, scenario 2C and 3C, respectively) compared with implementing the discount (€9.2 million, scenario 1C)., Conclusions: Outcome-based models can mitigate the financial risk of reimbursing atidarsagene autotemcel. This can be considerably beneficial over simple discounts when clinical performance was similar to or worse than predicted., Competing Interests: Author Disclosures Author disclosure forms can be accessed below in the Supplemental Material section. The views expressed in this article are the personal views of the authors. They may not be understood or quoted as being made on behalf of or reflecting the position of the agencies or organizations with which the authors are affiliated., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

This viewpoint discusses cost-effectiveness estimates for EtranaDez, a gene therapy for hemophilia B, using the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review's (ICER) framework for single and short-term therapies (SSTs). EtranaDez offers long-term benefits from a single administration, in contrast to the high costs and frequent dosing required by current factor IX prophylaxis. However, the projected gains in health from EtranaDez are small relative to the cost implications of the therapy, and consequently, how the cost offsets associated with EtranaDez are counted has a substantial impact on assessing its cost-effectiveness. Strategies for assessing cost offsets used in the ICER SST framework include a 50/50 cost-sharing model between the health care system and the manufacturer and a cap of $150,000 annually on health care cost offsets. Results from the standard full cost-offset analysis as reported by ICER depicted EtranaDez as a dominant therapy with substantial cost savings compared with factor IX prophylaxis. However, while considering the ICER SST framework, particularly the $150,000 annual cap scenario, the cost-effectiveness was significantly reduced. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio varied notably between these scenarios, challenging the conventional perception of value of gene therapy in health care. These cost-sharing scenarios highlight the potential of the ICER SST framework to help curtail inefficient health care spending. In cases in which the cost of existing treatment is exceedingly high, the application of such frameworks would improve efficiency in resource allocation, fostering a balance between incentives for innovation and economic sustainability in managed care systems.

Competing Interests: AS has received consultant fees from Spotlight Therapeutics, Medexus, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Sangamo Therapeutics, and Editas Medicine. He is a medical monitor for a Resource for Clinical Investigations in Blood and Marrow Transplantation Conditioning SCID Infants Diagnosed Early clinical trial for which he receives financial compensation. He has also received research funding from CRISPR Therapeutics and honoraria from Vindico Medical Education. AS is the St Jude Children's Research Hospital site principal investigator of clinical trials for genome editing of sickle cell disease sponsored by Vertex Pharmaceuticals/CRISPR Therapeutics (NCT03745287), Novartis Pharmaceuticals (NCT04443907), and Beam Therapeutics (NCT05456880). The industry sponsors provide funding for the clinical trial, which includes salary support paid to AS's institution. AS has no direct financial interest in these therapies. AS is supported by a grant (1U01HL163983) from the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The content of this Comment is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. TDJ has participated as an advisory board member and received consulting fees from Bluebird Bio and Vertex Pharmaceuticals. She is a medical monitor for BMT CTN 2001 GRASP study for which she receives compensation. TDJ is the Stanford site principal investigator of clinical trials for genome editing sponsored by Beam Therapeutics (NCT04443907). TDJ has no direct financial interest in this therapy. We thank Keith A Laycock for scientific editing of the Comment. We also thank Jennifer Adair, Fred Hutch Cancer Center, Jane Hankins, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, and Zainab Garba-Sani, Stanford University and NHS England, for offering critical insights on the topic and reviewing an early draft of the manuscript.

Background Aims: The marketing authorization of Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs) in Brazil is recent. The features of these therapies impose specialized regulatory action and are consequently challenging for developers. The goal of this study was to identify the industry's experience in clinical development, marketing authorization and access to ATMPs through the Unified Health System (SUS, acronym in Portuguese), from a regulatory perspective., Methods: A survey containing structured questions was conducted among research participants who work at companies that commercialize ATMPs. A descriptive analysis was performed., Results: We invited 15 foreign pharmaceutical companies, of which 10 agreed to participate. Overall, participants assessed that Brazil has a well-established regulatory system, especially the sanitary registration by the National Health Surveillance Agency (Anvisa), which ensures the quality, safety, and efficacy of the products. The Agency's good interaction with the regulated sector, the harmonization of sanitary and ethical assessment systems with other countries, and the analysis time in the biosafety assessment of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) stand out as positive in industry's evaluation. On the other hand, it is important to advance the pricing regulation for these products since Brazilian regulations do not establish specific criteria for ATMP. One of the biggest challenges is the difficulty for the SUS in reimbursing these very high-cost therapies, especially using current Health Technology Assessment (HTA) methods., Conclusions: Considering the increasing number of approvals of cell and gene therapies in Brazil in the coming years, a close dialogue between the industry and the public sector is recommended to advance regulatory improvements (pricing and HTA). Additionally, the construction of policies to promote the national Health Economic-Industrial Complex, based on a mission-oriented vision that encourages innovative models of financing, especially those that consider risk-sharing and co-financing technologies, will help provide the population with universal, equitable and sustainable access to ATMP in the SUS., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors have no commercial, proprietary, or financial interest in the products or companies described in this article., (Copyright © 2024 International Society for Cell & Gene Therapy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Etranacogene dezaparvovec is a recently approved gene therapy for people with hemophilia B (PwHB). Current standard of care is prophylaxis with factor IX (FIX) to prevent bleeding. Etranacogene dezaparvovec increases blood FIX levels such that FIX prophylaxis could be eliminated., Objective: To estimate the budgetary impact of etranacogene dezaparvovec adoption and utilization in a commercial health plan of the United States., Methods: A budget impact model was developed to evaluate the introduction of etranacogene dezaparvovec to treat severe or moderately severe hemophilia B. The model considered a hypothetical 1-million-member plan over a 5-year horizon. FIX therapy prophylaxis use was estimated based on a weighted average of relevant brands using US market share data. A scenario of etranacogene dezaparvovec adoption/utilization was compared with one without etranacogene dezaparvovec utilization. Two etranacogene dezaparvovec uptake (market share growth) analyses were performed: one with gradual uptake and alternatively assuming all eligible PwHB received etranacogene dezaparvovec in year 1. The one-time cost of etranacogene dezaparvovec was assumed to be $3.5 million. Other costs (FIX prophylaxis, disease monitoring, bleed management, and adverse events) were estimated from published literature. All costs were in 2022 US dollars. Bleed and adverse event rates were sourced from the HOPE-B trial comparing etranacogene dezaparvovec to previous FIX therapy prophylaxis. The model estimated annual and per-member per-month costs over 5 years. Secondary analyses were performed considering a 10-year horizon., Results: In the 1-million-member health plan, an estimated 1.8 PwHB were eligible for treatment with etranacogene dezaparvovec. Gradual uptake of etranacogene dezaparvovec resulted in cumulative 5-year budget impact of $848,509 compared with a scenario without etranacogene dezaparvovec. In years 1-5, the incremental annual and per-member per-month costs ranged from $79,824 to $271,435 and from $0.007 to $0.023, respectively. In the alternative uptake analysis, etranacogene dezaparvovec became cost saving annually beginning in year 2 and cumulatively beginning in year 5, for a 5-year savings of $754,844. Secondary analyses over 10 years found both uptake analyses cost saving. Other scenarios considered did not affect results substantially., Conclusions: Introducing etranacogene dezaparvovec as treatment for PwHB would have a modest budget increase within 5 years after treatment but may become cost saving if all eligible PwHB were treated in year 1. Initiating PwHB on etranacogene dezaparvovec sooner may produce greater overall savings and earlier annual savings. Etranacogene dezaparvovec is a treatment option that may provide overall cost savings for US commercial health plans, which would increase as the plan size increases.

Spinal muscular atrophy is no longer a leading cause of inherited infant death in the United States. Since 2016, three genetic therapies have been approved for the treatment of spinal muscular atrophy. Each therapy has been well studied with robust data for both safety and efficacy. However, there are no head-to-head comparator studies to inform clinical decision making. Thus, treatment selection, timing, and combination therapy is largely up to clinician preference and insurance policies. As the natural history of spinal muscular atrophy continues to change, more data is needed to assist in evidence-based and cost-effective clinical decision making., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest MAW has received clinical trial support from and served as an advisory board member for Novartis Gene Therapies., (Copyright © 2024 The Author. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

In this market insights program, AMCP brought together a panel of experts representing various stakeholders: national and regional health plans, integrated health care systems, employer benefits groups, clinical experts, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and patient advocacy organizations. The objectives were to gain insights into the current and evolving treatments in hemophilia, sickle cell disease, and β-thalassemia; measure the effects of recently approved therapies on clinicians, payers, and patients; recognize emerging trends within the stop-loss market; address potential issues and obstacles related to monitoring and reporting outcomes; and identify concerns associated with both existing and emerging contracting and reimbursement models. This article aims to summarize expert perspectives on health care system challenges and strategies concerning the management of inherited blood disorders and to advance managed care professionals' understanding of their role in supporting care for these patients. The experts emphasized that when shaping coverage policies, a patient-centered approach is crucial, focusing on preserving organ function to maintain eligibility for future gene therapies among individuals with inherited blood disorders. These strategies, including benefit design modifications, specialized provider networks, and centralized mechanisms like registries, are vital for evaluating effectiveness, facilitating decision-making, and managing costs and risks associated with new and emerging treatment options for inherited blood disorders.

Background Aims: To better understand the attitudes and behaviors of investors involved in funding cell and gene therapy (CGT) businesses, the Business Development and Finance) subcommittee of International Society for Cell and Gene Therapy, in collaboration with Truist Securities, conducted a broad survey of the investment community in late 2021., Methods: This survey follows a similar study that this group executed in 2018, and the longitudinal comparisons between the two time periods provide insights into how investor behavior in the CGT field has evolved., Results: The vast majority of investor respondents are specialist biotech investors who are primarily active in deploying capital in North America and Europe. There was a notable increase in the proportion of investors actively deploying capital in China and Japan between 2018 and 2021. The percentage of respondents' portfolios dedicated to CGT companies has also increased in this period, reflecting a noteworthy trend in the therapeutic landscape., Conclusions: Clinically significant data remain the dominant force behind investment decisions, whereas competition from other drug modalities has now emerged as the most-cited barrier to making a CGT investment, eclipsing safety concerns as the most significant barrier to investment in 2018. Concerns around manufacturing and scale-up have also increased in prominence amongst the investment community. Gene-editing technologies are attracting investors as the most compelling new CGT technology. This survey also revealed that most investors expect to increase their level of investment in allogeneic technologies relative to autologous products in the coming years., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors have no commercial, proprietary or financial interest in the products or companies described in this article., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

An increasing number of novel genomic therapies are expected to become available for patients with rare or ultra-rare diseases. However, the primary obstacle to equal patient access to these orphan genomic therapies are currently very high prices charged by manufacturers in the context of limited healthcare budgets. Taking into account ethical pricing theories, the paper proposes the implementation of a pricing infrastructure covering all European member states, which has the potential to promote distributive justice while maintaining the attractiveness of genomic therapy development., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Aim: To review the available evidence about the strategies implemented or proposed for coverage or reimbursement for currently approved gene therapies., Methods: A scoping review was conducted to analyze the evidence published during the years 2016 to 2023. The main search criteria were coverage or reimbursement of gene therapy by healthcare systems. The eligible articles were those that described or proposed a financing model used to provide coverage in the various systems around the world., Results: The study identified 279 publications, and after removing duplicates and screening for eligibility, 10 were included in the study. The results show that various financing models have been proposed, including subscription-based payment models, outcome-based payment models, and amortization strategies. However, several barriers to implementing these models were identified, such as deficiencies in informatics systems for data collection, changes in laws or regulations, the lack of accessible clinical endpoints and administrative costs., Conclusion: This scoping review provides an overview of financing strategies for gene therapies. Gene therapies can cure rare or previously intractable diseases, but their high cost can make access difficult. Publishing experiences with these models can help evaluate their use and gather more evidence for their effectiveness., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background and Objective: Novel messenger RNA (mRNA)-based therapies, currently in development, are emerging as a promising potential treatment modality for a broad range of life-threatening and life-limiting inherited liver diseases, including methylmalonic acidemia (MMA) and propionic acidemia (PA). However, owing in part to their complexity, they are likely to come at considerable financial cost to healthcare systems. The objective of this research was to synthesize available evidence on the costs and clinical consequences associated with MMA and PA for the purpose of exploratory economic evaluation of novel mRNA-based therapies using an early cost-utility model from the United Kingdom payer perspective., Methods: A Markov model was constructed to simulate the costs and outcomes associated with novel mRNA therapies, compared with a combination of dietary management and organ transplantation (standard of care) among hypothetical cohorts of new-born patients with MMA and PA. Key model drivers were identified, and a price threshold analysis was performed to estimate value-based price ranges for future mRNA therapies given willingness-to-pay thresholds for orphan diseases., Results: mRNA therapy was associated with an additional 5.7 and 1.3 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained per patient lifetime among patients with MMA and PA, respectively. Key drivers of cost-effectiveness were relative improvement in utility among patients who receive mRNA-based therapy and transplantation, and the cost of mRNA therapy. Assuming a willingness to pay range of £100,000-£300,000 per QALY gained, the model demonstrated mRNA therapy to be cost-effective in MMA and PA at an annual treatment cost of £70,452-£94,575 and £31,313-£36,695, respectively., Conclusions: Despite the lack of a strong evidence base in MMA and PA, this model provides a useful tool to estimate the cost-effectiveness, and inform value-based pricing, of new mRNA-based therapies. Our analyses also identified areas for research that will have the greatest value in reducing uncertainty in future health economic evaluations of such treatments., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

Background and Objective: Gene therapies for sickle cell disease (SCD) may offer meaningful benefits for patients and society. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of lovotibeglogene autotemcel (lovo-cel), a one-time gene therapy administered via autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, compared with common care for patients in the United States (US) with SCD aged ≥ 12 years with ≥ 4 vaso-occlusive events (VOEs) in the past 24 months., Methods: We developed a patient-level simulation model accounting for lovo-cel and SCD-related events, complications, and mortality over a lifetime time horizon. The pivotal phase 1/2 HGB-206 clinical trial (NCT02140554) served as the basis for lovo-cel efficacy and safety. Cost, quality-of-life, and other clinical data were sourced from HGB-206 data and the literature. Analyses were conducted from US societal and third-party payer perspectives. Uncertainty was assessed through probabilistic sensitivity analysis and extensive scenario analyses., Results: Patients treated with lovo-cel were predicted to survive 23.84 years longer on average (standard deviation [SD], 12.80) versus common care (life expectancy, 62.24 versus 38.40 years), with associated discounted patient quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gains of 10.20 (SD, 4.10) and direct costs avoided of $1,329,201 (SD, $1,346,446) per patient. Predicted societal benefits included discounted caregiver QALY losses avoided of 1.19 (SD, 1.38) and indirect costs avoided of $540,416 (SD, $262,353) per patient. Including lovo-cel costs ($3,282,009 [SD, $29,690] per patient) resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $191,519 and $124,051 per QALY gained from third-party payer and societal perspectives, respectively. In scenario analyses, the predicted cost-effectiveness of lovo-cel also was sensitive to baseline age and VOE frequency and to the proportion of patients achieving and maintaining complete resolution of VOEs., Conclusions: Our analysis of lovo-cel gene therapy compared with common care for patients in the US with SCD with recurrent VOEs estimated meaningful improvements in survival, quality of life, and other clinical outcomes accompanied by increased overall costs for the health care system and for broader society. The predicted economic value of lovo-cel gene therapy was influenced by uncertainty in long-term clinical effects and by positive spillover effects on patient productivity and caregiver burden., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Cell and gene therapy (CGT) innovations have provided several significant breakthroughs in recent years. However, CGTs often come with a high upfront cost, raising questions about patient access, affordability, and long-term value. This study reviewed cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) studies that have attempted to assess the long-term value of Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved CGTs. Two reviewers independently searched the Tufts Medical Center CEA Registry to identify all studies for FDA-approved CGTs, per January 2023. A data extraction template was used to summarize the evidence in terms of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio expressed as the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and essential modeling assumptions, combined with a template to extract the adherence to the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. The review identified 26 CEA studies for seven CGTs. Around half of the base-case cost-effectiveness results indicated that the cost per QALY was below $100,000-$150,000, often used as a threshold for reasonable cost-effectiveness in the United States. However, the results varied substantially across studies for the same treatment, ranging from being considered very cost-effective to far from cost-effective. Most models were based on data from single-arm trials with relatively short follow-ups, and different long-term extrapolations between studies caused large differences in the modeled cost-effectiveness results. In sum, this review showed that, despite the high upfront costs, many CGTs have cost-effectiveness evidence that can support long-term value. Nonetheless, substantial uncertainty regarding long-term value exists because so much of the modeling results are driven by uncertain extrapolations beyond the clinical trial data.

Objectives: Discounting the cost and effect for health intervention is a controversial topic over the last two decades. In particular, the cost-effectiveness of gene therapies is especially sensitive to the discount rate because of the substantial delay between the upfront cost incurred and long-lasing clinical benefits received. This study aims to investigate the influence of employing alternative discount rates on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of gene therapies., Methods: A systematic review was conducted to include health economic evaluations of gene therapies that were published until April 2023., Results: Sensitivity or scenario analysis indicated that discount rate represented one of the most influential factors for the ICERs of gene therapies. Discount rate for cost and benefit was positively correlated with the cost-effectiveness of gene therapies, that is, a lower discount rate significantly improves the ICERs. The alternative discount rate employed in some cases could be powerful to alter the conclusion on whether gene therapies are cost-effective and acceptable for reimbursement., Conclusions: Although discount rate will have substantial influence on the ICERs of gene therapies, there lacks solid evidence to justify a different discounting rule for gene therapies. However, it is proposed that the discount rate in the reference case should be updated to reflect the real-time preference, which in turn will affect the ICERs and reimbursement of gene therapies more profoundly than conventional therapies.

The cell and gene therapy (CGT) sector has witnessed significant advancement over the past decade, the inception of advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) being one of the most transformational. ATMPs treat serious medical conditions, in some cases providing curative therapy for seriously ill patients. There is interest in pivoting the ATMP development from autologous based treatments to allogenic, to offer faster and greater patient access that should ultimately reduce treatment costs. Consequently, starting material from allogenic donors is required, igniting ethical issues associated with financial gains and donor remuneration within CGT. The World Marrow Donor Association (WMDA) established the Cellular Therapy Committee to identify the role WMDA can play in safeguarding donors and patients in the CGT field. Here we review key ethical principles in relation to donating cellular material for the CGT field. We present the updated statement from WMDA on donor remuneration, which supports non-remuneration as the best way to ensure the safety and well-being of donors and patients alike. This is in line with the fundamental objective of the WMDA to maintain the health and safety of volunteer donors while ensuring high-quality stem cell products are available for all patients. We acknowledge that the CGT field is evolving at a rapid pace and there will be a need to review this position as new practices and applications come to pass., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

The health economics of cell and gene therapies is complex; due to resource-intensive manufacturing, high prices are required for commercial viability that are challenging for healthcare systems to accommodate. Despite high prices, cell and gene therapies can provide value when they deliver substantial clinical benefits and displace long-term healthcare costs compared with existing treatment options. In this chapter, the cost utility approach of economic evaluation is discussed, focusing on the considerations that occur more commonly in cell and gene therapies compared to conventional medicines, how these considerations create challenges in interpreting the evidence and coming to conclusions on value, and what tools exist for understanding the level of decision uncertainty. A summary of the economic evaluation of onasemnogene abeparvovec for spinal muscular atrophy is provided as a real-world example that features the considerations discussed., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights are reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

Introduction: Etranacogene dezaparvovec (EDZ), Hemgenix, is a gene therapy recently approved for people with hemophilia B (PwHB)., Objective: To estimate long-term clinical impact and cost of EDZ in the United States (US)., Methods: A decision-analytic model was developed to evaluate the long-term impact of introducing EDZ for PwHB over a 20-year time horizon. Factor IX (FIX) prophylaxis comparator was a weighted average of different FIX prophylaxis regimens based on US market share data. We compared a scenario in which EDZ is introduced in the US versus a scenario without EDZ. Clinical inputs (annualized FIX-treated bleed rate; adverse event rates) were obtained from HOPE-B phase 3 trial. EDZ durability input was sourced from an analysis predicting long-term FIX activity with EDZ. EDZ one-time price was assumed at $3.5 million. Other medical costs, including FIX prophylaxis, disease monitoring, bleed management, and adverse events were from literature. The model estimated annual and cumulative costs, treated bleeds, and joint procedures over 20 years from EDZ introduction., Results: Approximately 596 PwHB were eligible for EDZ. EDZ uptake was estimated to avert 11,282 bleeds and 64 joint procedures over 20 years. Although adopting EDZ resulted in an annual excess cost over years 1-5 (mean: $53 million annually, total $265 million), annual cost savings were achieved beginning in year 6 (mean: $172 million annually; total $2.58 billion in years 6-20). The total cumulative 20-year cost savings was $2.32 billion, with cumulative cost savings beginning in year 8., Conclusion: Introducing EDZ to treat PwHB is expected to result in cost savings and patient benefit over 20 years. Initiating PwHB on EDZ sooner can produce greater and earlier savings and additional bleeds avoided. These results may be a conservative estimate of the full value of EDZ, as PwHB would continue to accrue savings beyond 20 years.

Gene therapy is a new class of medical treatment that alters part of a patient's genome through the replacement, deletion, or insertion of genetic material. While still in its infancy, gene therapy has demonstrated immense potential to treat and even cure previously intractable diseases. Nevertheless, existing gene therapy prices are high, raising concerns about its affordability for U.S. payers and its availability to patients. We assess the potential financial impact of novel gene therapies by developing and implementing an original simulation model which entails the following steps: identifying the 109 late-stage gene therapy clinical trials underway before January 2020, estimating the prevalence and incidence of their corresponding diseases, applying a model of the increase in quality-adjusted life years for each therapy, and simulating the launch prices and expected spending of all available gene therapies annually. The results of our simulation suggest that annual spending on gene therapies will be approximately $20.4 billion, under conservative assumptions. We decompose the estimated spending by treated age group as a proxy for insurance type, finding that approximately one-half of annual spending will on the use of gene therapies to treat non-Medicare-insured adults and children. We conduct multiple sensitivity analyses regarding our assumptions and model parameters. We conclude by considering the tradeoffs of different payment methods and policies that intend to ensure patient access to the expected benefits of gene therapy., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

BACKGROUND: Genetic therapies are a promising treatment for children born with spinal muscular atrophy (SMA); however, their high price tags can evoke coverage restrictions. OBJECTIVE: To assess variation in coverage guidelines across fee-for-service state Medicaid programs for 2 novel genetic therapies, nusinersen and onasemnogene abeparvovec, that treat SMA. We also assessed the association of these coverage guidelines with use of the 2 genetic therapies. METHODS: We evaluated fee-for-service Medicaid coverage policies for nusinersen and onasemnogene abeparvovec from publicly available websites for the period February 2020-March 2020. We then documented areas of agreement and disagreement across 4 key coverage domains. We used 2018 and 2019 state Medicaid drug utilization data to calculate the use of nusinersen across Medicaid programs and assessed that use against the restrictiveness of the coverage guidelines. RESULTS: We identified 19 state Medicaid coverage guidelines for nusinersen. Most states agreed on diagnostics requirements; however, there were disagreements based on ventilator status. We identified 17 state Medicaid coverage guidelines for onasemnogene abeparvovec. There was more discordance in these coverage guidelines compared with nusinersen, notably in domains of SMN2 gene count and ventilator status. When comparing utilization of nusinersen with coverage restrictions, we found that the more restrictive states had considerably lower utilization of nusinersen. CONCLUSIONS: There was significant variation across fee-for-service Medicaid coverage policies for nusinersen and onasemnogene abeparvovec. Although states can impose individual coverage guidelines for each drug, we presented policy options that could reduce variation and potentially decrease the cost burden of these drugs. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Arnold Ventures. The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Introduction: The limited evidence in the clinical trials of gene therapies (GTs) posed substantial challenges for a reliable health technology assessment (HTA). This paper provides insights into the relationship between the background of diseases and the health economics assessment of GTs.Areas covered: The impacts of differentiated severity and unmet needs of genetic diseases, on the economic analysis of GTs, were discussed.Expert opinion: GTs offer a potential cure or significant clinical improvement, while limitations in clinical evidence constitute major obstacles for a robust assessment of clinical effectiveness and economic outcomes. This uncertainty may be balanced by the severity of the targeted condition and the associated unmet needs, thus leading to a relatively higher acceptance for GTs. Overtime, HTA agencies will become more demanding on comprehensive evidence of long-term effectiveness. With a growing number of GTs on the horizon, to what extent the unmet needs of previously devastating diseases will be fulfilled remain unclear. Nonetheless, comparative studies, either with a historical control group or existing treatments, will be necessary to demonstrate the additional benefits associated with GTs.

Adeno-associated virus (AAV)-mediated gene therapy is a novel treatment promising to reduce morbidity associated with hemophilia. Although multiple clinical trials continue to evaluate efficacy and safety, limited cost-effectiveness data have been published. This study compared the potential cost-effectiveness of AAV-mediated factor IX (FIX)-Padua gene therapy for patients with severe hemophilia B in the United States vs on-demand FIX replacement and primary FIX prophylaxis, using either standard or extended half-life FIX products. A microsimulation Markov model was constructed, and transition probabilities between health states and utilities were informed by using published data. Costs were aggregated by using a microcosting approach. A time horizon from 18 years old until death, from the perspective of a third-party payer in the United States, was conducted. Gene therapy was more cost-effective than both alternatives considering a $150 000/quality-adjusted life-year threshold. The price for gene therapy was assumed to be $2 000 000 in the base case scenario; however, one of the 1-way sensitivity analyses was conducted by using observed manufacturing, administration, and 5-year follow-up costs of $87 198 for AAV-mediated gene therapy vector as derived from the manufacturing facility and clinical practice at St Jude Children's Research Hospital. One-way sensitivity analyses revealed 10 of 102 scenarios in which gene therapy was not cost-effective compared with alternative treatments. Notably, gene therapy remained cost-effective in a hypothetical scenario in which we estimated that the discounted factor concentrate price was 20% of the wholesale acquisition cost in the United States. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis estimated gene therapy to be cost-effective at 92% of simulations considering a $150 000/quality-adjusted life-year threshold. In conclusion, based on detailed simulation inputs and assumptions, gene therapy was more cost-effective than on-demand treatment and prophylaxis for patients with severe hemophilia B., (© 2021 by The American Society of Hematology.)

Gene therapy for hemophilia is designed to produce health gains for patients over many years. Rewarding that value creation on the basis of a one-time treatment implies a large upfront cost. This cost can only be justified by long-term health benefits and being cost-effective compared with conventional treatments. Yet, uncertainties about the long-term benefits make it challenging to assess clinical and economic value of gene therapies at launch. We identify and discuss key methodological challenges in assessing the value of gene therapy for hemophilia, including the immaturity of evidence on the durability of benefits, lack of definition and valuation of cure for chronic diseases, absence of randomized controlled trials, limitations of traditional quality of life measures in hemophilia, approach for qualifying cost-savings compared with current treatments, and choice of perspective. The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review has developed a framework for assessing single or short-term therapies (ICER-SST) and has applied it in hemophilia. After reviewing this framework and its application, we recommend the following when assessing the value of hemophilia gene therapies: (1) leveraging expert clinical opinion to justify assumptions on the durability of benefits; (2) using external synthetic controls and lead-in, self-controlled trials to assess comparative effectiveness; (3) addressing limitations of traditional quality of life measures through the use of modified utility collection approaches; (4) adjusting cost offsets from gene therapies with caution; (5) considering outcome-based contracting to address uncertainties about prices and long-term outcomes; and (6) presenting societal and healthcare system perspectives in parallel., (Copyright © 2021 ISPOR–The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Somatic gene editing (SGE) holds great promise for making genetic therapy possible for many monogenic conditions very soon. Is our current system of European market authorization and reimbursement ready for the expected tsunami of gene therapies? At a recent workshop of the Netherlands ZonMw consortium on ethical, legal, and social implications of personalized medicine, we discussed the current possibilities for bringing new gene therapies to the clinic. In Europe, it is not yet clear whether the route via the European medicines agency as an advanced therapy medicinal product is the most appropriate for evaluation of highly personalized SGE applications, although this may optimally guarantee safety and effectiveness. Compassionate use may ensure faster access than the centralized procedure but does not stimulate the commercial development of products. Prescription to named patients may only provide adequate access for single patients. Temporary authorization of use may allow access to medication half a year before formal market authorization has been granted, but may also have large budget impacts. Magistral compounding under a hospital exemption may be an attractive solution for rare, tailor-made applications at an acceptable price. To approve local experimental use of a therapy on a case-by-case basis may be fast, but does not guarantee optimal safety, effectiveness, and broad implementation. We argue that alternative routes should be considered for products developed for a market of large groups of patients versus unique personalized treatments. A balance between scientific evidence for safety and effectiveness, affordability, and fast access may demand a range of alternative solutions., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) has caused significant disruption to the cell and gene therapy (CGT) industry, which has historically faced substantial complexities in supply of materials, and manufacturing and logistics processes. As decision-makers shifted their priorities to COVID-19-related issues, the challenges in market authorisation, and price and reimbursement of CGTs were amplified. Nevertheless, it is encouraging to see that some CGT developers are adapting their efforts toward the development of promising COVID-19-related therapeutics and vaccines. Manufacturing resilience, digitalisation, telemedicine, value-based pricing, and innovative payment mechanisms will be increasingly harnessed to ensure that market access of CGTs is not severely disrupted., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Hundreds of gene therapies are undergoing clinical testing and are likely to be priced more than $1 million per course of treatment. The association that high prices will have with insurance coverage of gene therapy remains unclear. Gene therapy for sickle cell disease has shown early success and would be one of the first gene therapies available for a relatively large population., Objectives: To estimate the budget impact and affordability of a gene therapy for severe sickle cell disease from the perspective of US Medicaid programs with the highest prevalence of sickle cell disease while exploring the impact of an annuity payment model., Design, Setting, and Participants: A budget impact analysis was performed from January 1 to May 31, 2020, for a sickle cell disease gene therapy from the perspective of 10 state Medicaid plans with a 5-year time horizon, using state-level disease prevalence data from 2012. Disease prevalence, Medicaid enrollment, and expenditures were derived from the available literature. The eligible population was based on modified clinical trial inclusion criteria including individuals aged 13 to 45 years with severe disease., Exposures: The gene therapy was assumed to be administered to 7% of the eligible population annually and was curative (no subsequent disease-related expenditures). The gene therapy price was $1.85 million in the base case, and baseline disease-related expenditures were $42 200 per year., Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were total budget impact and budget impact per member per month in years 1 through 5. One-way sensitivity analysis was used to evaluate uncertainty of market diffusion, size of eligible population, price of therapy, and cost of routine care., Results: An estimated 5464 Medicaid enrollees would be eligible for the gene therapy nationally, with 2315 individuals in the 10 Medicaid programs of interest (16 per 100 000 enrollees). The model projected a mean 1-year budget impact of $29.96 million per state Medicaid program in the sample ($1.91 per member per month). A 5-year annuity payment reduced the short-term budget impact., Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests that a gene therapy for severe sickle cell disease is likely to produce a considerable budget impact for many Medicaid plans while potentially offering substantial benefit to patients. Payers may need to take steps to ensure affordability and access. Gene therapy for sickle cell disease is likely to provide an early demonstration of the unique financial challenges associated with this emerging drug class.

Objectives: Onasemnogene Abeparvovec-xioi (AVXS-101) is a gene therapy intended for curative treatment of spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) with an expected price of around €2 000 000. The goal of this study is to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment of SMA I patients with AVXS-101 in The Netherlands including relapse scenarios., Methods: An individual-based state-transition model was used to model treatment effect and survival of SMA I patients treated with AVXS-101, nusinersen and best supportive care (BSC). The model included five health states: three health states according to SMA types, one for permanent ventilation and one for death. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Effects of relapsing to lower health states in the years following treatment was explored., Results: The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for AVXS-101 versus BSC is €138 875/QALY, and €53 447/QALY for AVXS-101 versus nusinersen. If patients relapse within 10 years after treatment with AVXS-101, the ICER can increase up to 6-fold, with effects diminishing thereafter. Only relapses occurring later than 50 years after treatment have a negligible effect on the ICER. To comply with Dutch willingness-to-pay reference values, the price of AVXS-101 must decrease to €680 000., Conclusions: Based on this model, treatment with AVXS-101 is unlikely to be cost-effective under Dutch willingness-to-pay reference values. Uncertainty regarding the long-term curative properties of AVXS-101 can result in multiplication of the ICER. Decision-makers are advised to appropriately balance these uncertainties against the price they are willing to pay now., (Copyright © 2021 ISPOR–The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To evaluate alternative methods to calculate and/or attribute economic surplus in the cost-effectiveness analysis of single or short-term therapies., Methods: We performed a systematic literature review of articles describing alternative methods for cost-effectiveness analysis of potentially curative therapies whose assessment using traditional methods may suggest unaffordable valuations owing to the magnitude of estimated long-term quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gains or cost offsets. Through internal deliberation and discussion with staff at the Health Technology Assessment bodies in England and Canada, we developed the following 3 alternative methods for further evaluation: (1) capping annual costs in the comparator arm at $150 000 per year; (2) "sharing" the economic surplus with the health sector by apportioning only 50% of cost offsets or 50% of cost offsets and QALY gains to the value of the therapy; and (3) crediting the therapy with only 12 years of the average annual cost offsets or cost offsets and QALY gains over the lifetime horizon. The impact of each alternative method was evaluated by applying it in an economic model of 3 hypothetical condition-treatment scenarios meant to reflect a diversity of chronicity and background healthcare costs., Results: The alternative with greatest impact on threshold price for the fatal pediatric condition spinal muscular atrophy type 1 was the 12-year cutoff scenario. For a hypothetical one-time treatment for hemophilia A, capping cost offsets at $150 000 per year had the greatest impact. For chimeric antigen receptor T-cell treatment of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, capping cost offsets or using 12-year threshold had little impact, whereas 50% sharing of surplus including QALY gains and cost offsets greatly reduced threshold pricing., Conclusions: Health Technology Assessment bodies and policy makers will wrestle with how to evaluate single or short-term potentially curative therapies and establish pricing and payment mechanisms to ensure sustainability. Scenario analyses using alternative methods for calculating and apportioning economic surplus can provide starkly different assessment results. These methods may stimulate important societal dialogue on fair pricing for these novel treatments., (Copyright © 2021 ISPOR–The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Sickle cell disease (SCD) is a group of inherited genetic conditions associated with lifelong complications and increased healthcare resource utilization. Standard treatment for SCD in the US varies based on stage of the disease and observed clinical severity. In this study, we aim to evaluate the potential cost-effectiveness of a durable cell or gene therapy cure for sickle cell disease from the US healthcare sector perspective. We developed a lifetime Markov model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a hypothetical single-administration durable treatment (DT) for SCD provided at birth, relative to standard of care (SOC). We informed model inputs including direct healthcare costs, health state utility weights, transition probabilities, and mortality rates using a retrospective database analysis of commercially insured individuals and the medical literature. Our primary outcome of interest was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of DT versus SOC evaluated at a base case willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). We tested the robustness of our base case findings through scenario, deterministic sensitivity (DSA), and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA). In the base case analysis, treatment with DT was cost-effective with an ICER of $140,877/QALY relative to SOC for a hypothetical cohort involving 47% females. Both males (ICER of $135,574/QALY) and females (ICER of $146,511/QALY) were similarly cost-effective to treat. In univariate DSA the base case ICER was most sensitive to the costs of treating males, DT treatment cost, and the discount rate. In PSA, DT was cost-effective in 32.7%, 66.0%, and 92.6% of 10,000 simulations at WTP values of $100,000, $150,000, and $200,000 per QALY, respectively. A scenario analysis showed cost-effectiveness of DT is highly contingent on assumed lifetime durability of the cure. A hypothetical cell or gene therapy cure for SCD is likely to be cost-effective from the US healthcare sector perspective. Large upfront costs of a single administration cure are offset by significant downstream gains in health for patients treated early in life. We find cost-effectiveness outcomes do not vary substantially by gender; however, several model parameters including assumed durability and upfront cost of DT are likely to influence cost-effectiveness findings.

At an upfront price of $2.125 million, the one-time gene therapy onasemnogene abeparvovec for spinal muscular atrophy, a rare neuromuscular disorder that is usually fatal by 2 years of age if untreated, has been called the "most expensive drug ever." This flawed characterization raises important methodological and policy issues regarding valuation of high-cost treatments. We reviewed several other high-cost therapies-with a particular focus on hemophilia A treatment-studied by the nonprofit Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER). In ICER's summary report of 2 treatments for managing hemophilia A, published in this month's JMCP issue, the estimated $15-$18 million lifetime cost of factor VIII is characterized as "far too high," representing "a failure of competition [that] … builds a platform for pricing of treatments … that will only exacerbate these problems." Current literature indicates several factors underlying high factor VIII treatment cost (eg, historical pattern of innovation and lack of market competition) that may also drive the pricing dynamics of advanced therapies for other rare diseases. When a treatment's price is driven high (or "distorted"), an economic principle known as "theory of the second best" suggests that market price becomes a poor estimate of social opportunity cost, and adjustments should be made for such distortions. In any case, a high-cost standard of care creates an opportunity for new technology to generate cost savings, providing an inducement for market entry. Recognizing that this potentially creates a tendency to produce price distortions for new treatments, ICER has attempted to apply some ad hoc adjustments. However, challenges remain in creating a "level playing field" across different disease-modifying or potentially curative innovations (eg, one-time therapy vs ongoing or lifelong treatment with repeated doses). While additional policy work is needed to address this dilemma, it would clearly be misleading to assume that gene therapies are inherently expensive. Rigorous economic evaluation of novel therapies requires careful comparison of lifetime cost and benefits vs standard of care, including adjustments for pricing distortions. Fortunately, economic theory suggests that we could adjust to this circumstance by using the social opportunity costs of interventions based on an appropriate variable cost-effectiveness threshold that would be higher for rare severe diseases. DISCLOSURES: The research reported in this Viewpoints article was funded by Novartis Gene Therapies, Inc. Garrison and Jiao were paid by Novartis Gene Therapies, Inc., to conduct this research. Garrison has also received consulting fees from BioMarin, Inc, and UniQure. Dabbous is a full-time employee of Novartis Gene Therapies, Inc., and holds Novartis stock and stock options.

This review can inform gene therapy developers on challenges that can be encountered when seeking market access. Moreover, it provides an overview of trends among challenges and potential solutions., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

The scientific literature, including several papers published in the IJHPR, has raised the issue of the spiraling cost of cancer treatment, including that of cancer drugs and other technologies such as gene and cell therapies. In this perspective, we review three criteria for insurability and show that they may not be met.First, the uncertain trends in the cost of innovative pharmaceutical and other cancer technologies make the maximum possible loss per event very difficult to predict and to manage in terms of insurer solvency. Second, the uncertainty of the price, the period that a drug or other cancer care technology will be administered and the number of individuals that will need the technology makes it difficult to predict future insurance premiums and whether they will be affordable to the target population. Third, public coverage needs to be consistent with societal values. However, pressure to limit public coverage will gradually increase as the possibilities of innovative pharmaceutical cancer technologies expand, thus transferring the burden onto commercial insurance. This is a phenomenon that is virtually impossible to predict accurately, but which will certainly undermine the status of health as a social good.We conclude that the financial risk arising from the use of innovative pharmaceutical cancer technologies fails to meet the aforementioned criteria, thus raising questions as to the sustainability of commercial insurance for cancer treatment and suggesting the need for the state to take greater responsibility for covering this financial risk in the future.

Cell and gene therapies offer opportunities for treating disease with potential to restore function, and cure disease. However, they are not without risk and pose complex logistical, economic, ethical and social challenges for health systems. Here we report our systematic review of the current evidence on patient and public knowledge and perspectives of cell and gene therapies, to inform future research, education and awareness raising activities. We screened 10,735 titles and abstracts, and evaluated the full texts of 151 publications. The final selection was 35 publications. Four themes were generated from the narrative synthesis of the study findings namely: (1) Knowledge and understanding of cell and gene therapies, (2) Acceptance of cell and gene therapies (3) Understanding of risk and benefits of therapy, and (4) Information needs and current sources of information. As potential funders or future recipients, it is important that the public and patients are aware of these therapies, understand the issues involved, and can contribute to the debate. This review highlights the need for appropriate patient and public education on the various aspects of cell and gene therapies. High quality studies exploring patient and public opinions and experiences of cell and gene therapy are required. Patient and public perceptions of these therapies, alongside evidence of clinical and cost-effectiveness, will be central to their uptake and use.