Search

Objective: Currently there are no disease-specific approved therapies for non-alcoholic fatty liver (NAFL) and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH); however, several treatments are under development. This study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of hypothetical innovative therapies compared with lifestyle intervention alone and combined with pioglitazone, and assess the health economic consequences of their future availability for patients. Methods: A Markov cohort model was developed, considering fourteen disease health states and one absorbing state representing death. Transition probabilities, costs, utilities, and treatment efficacy were based on published data and assumptions. Four treatment strategies were considered, including two existing therapies (lifestyle intervention, small molecule treatment) and two hypothetical interventions (biological and curative therapy). The analysis was performed from the US third-party payer perspective. Results: The curative treatment with the assumed efficacy of 70% of patients cured and assumed price of $500,000 was the only cost-effective option. Although it incurred higher costs (a difference of $188,771 vs. lifestyle intervention and $197,702 vs. small molecule), it generated more QALYs (a difference of 1.58 and 1.38 QALYs, respectively), resulting in an ICER below the willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY. The sensitivity analyses showed that the results were robust to variations in model parameters. Conclusions: This study highlighted the potential benefits of therapies aimed at curing a disease rather than stopping its progression. Nonetheless, each of the analyzed therapies could be cost-effective compared with lifestyle intervention at a relatively high price.

Abstract Background In the Netherlands, more than one million patients have type 2 diabetes (T2D), and approximately 36% of these patients have chronic kidney disease (CKD). Yearly medical costs related to T2D and CKD account for approximately €1.3 billion and €805 million, respectively. The FIDELIO-DKD trial showed that the addition of finerenone to the standard of care (SoC) lowers the risk of CKD progression and cardiovascular (CV) events in patients with CKD stages 2–4 associated with T2D. This study investigates the cost-effectiveness of adding finerenone to the SoC of patients with advanced CKD and T2D compared to SoC monotherapy. Methods The validated FINE-CKD model is a Markov cohort model which simulates the disease pathway of patients over a lifetime time horizon. The model was adapted to reflect the Dutch societal perspective. The model estimated the incremental costs, utilities, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed to assess the effect of parameter uncertainty on model robustness. Results When used in conjunction with SoC, finerenone extended time free of CV events and renal replacement therapy by respectively 0.30 and 0.31 life years compared to SoC alone, resulting in an extension of 0.20 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The reduction in renal and CV events led to a €6136 decrease in total lifetime costs per patient compared to SoC alone, establishing finerenone as a dominant treatment option. Finerenone in addition to SoC had a 83% probability of being dominant and a 93% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €20,000. Conclusion By reducing the risk of CKD progression and CV events, finerenone saves costs to society while gaining QALYs in patients with T2D and advanced CKD in the Netherlands.

ABSTRACTBackground: Gene replacement therapy (GRT) is a treatment method used to combat or prevent various diseases. Its high one-off cost constitutes a major obstacle for successful market access. This paper aims to assess and discuss the applicability of amortization in models, such as cost-effectiveness models (CEMs) and budget impact models (BIMs) informing HTA recommendations and reimbursement decisions.Methods and findings: A hypothetical CEA and BIA were considered. The objective was to compare the GRT with and without amortization. A straight-line amortization model was used. The CEM and BIM were considered and assessed based on two set of scenarios: considering different amortization duration or different discounting rate. The impact of amortization against the total cost of gene therapy was assessed for all the scenarios.The cost difference between GRT with and without amortization in relation to its total cost was -$58,855, thus amortization does not have a significant impact on the results and conclusions of the cost-effectiveness analysis. For BIM in the base case, amortization had no impact on the results.Conclusion: Amortization has negligible impact on the results of CEM and total BIM and no impact on the conclusions from the model. One exception is the budget impact in case of an amortization period longer than the time horizon of BIM, where a half of the GRT price is moved beyond the model time horizon. Amortization has a distinguishing effect from an accounting perspective, but it does not have any implication for payers.

Aim: Paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH) is a rare blood disorder characterized by hemolytic anemia, bone marrow failure and thrombosis, and is associated with high healthcare burden. We evaluated the cost–effectiveness of pegcetacoplan, a proximal complement-3 inhibitor (C3i), compared with the C5i, eculizumab and ravulizumab, in complement treatment-naive adults with PNH, from the US healthcare payer perspective. Materials & methods: A de novo cost–effectiveness model based on a Markov cohort structure evaluated lifetime (55-year) PNH costs and outcomes. The 6-month cycles of the model reflected the follow-up period of PRINCE (NCT04085601), an open-label trial of pegcetacoplan compared with eculizumab in C5i-naive patients. Data from PRINCE informed the clinical, safety and health-related quality of life outcomes in the model. Results: Pegcetacoplan was associated with lifetime cost savings of $1,176,808 and $213,062 relative to eculizumab and ravulizumab, respectively (largely attributed to reduced drug costs and blood transfusions), and additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of 0.25 and 0.24. Conclusion: In patients with PNH who are treatment-naive, the base-case cost– effectiveness analysis, scenario analysis and sensitivity analysis showed both lifetime cost savings and increased QALYs associated with pegcetacoplan compared with eculizumab or ravulizumab in the USA.

Gene therapies (GTs) are considered to be a paradigm-shifting class of treatments with the potential to treat previously incurable diseases or those with significant unmet treatment needs. However, considerable challenges remain in their health technology assessment (HTA), mainly stemming from the inability to perform robust clinical trials to convince decision-makers to pay the high prices for the potential long-term treatment benefits provided. This article aims to review the recommendations that have been published for evidence generation and economic analysis for GTs against the feasibility of their implementation within current HTA decision analysis frameworks. After reviewing the systematically identified literature, we found that questions remain on the appropriateness of GT evidence generation, considering that additional, broader values brought by GTs seem insufficiently incorporated within proposed analytic methods. In cases where innovative methods are proposed, HTA organizations remain highly conservative and resistant to change their reference case and decision analysis framework. Such resistances are largely attributed to the substantial evidence uncertainty, resource-consuming administration process, and the absence of consensus on the optimized methodology to balance all the advantages and potential pitfalls of GTs.

Background: Gene therapies can treat, prevent, or cure a disease by changing the expression of a person’s genes. They are an innovative strategy for treating genetic disorders; however, they are still emerging on the market access and in the healthcare system. Health technology assessment (HTA) agencies have not yet elaborated any standardised approach for assessing gene therapies; therefore, significant differences can be seen during HTAs carried out in various countries. In this review, we focused on submitted economic models of gene therapies approved for use by the US FDA and EMA with the aim to provide a comprehensive summary of how selected HTA bodies assessed the cost-effectiveness of gene therapies. An additional objective was to examine and discuss differences in the methods used in economic models across countries and drugs. Methods: We identified economic models of gene therapies from six countries (NICE, IQWiG, SMC, HAS, CADTH, ICER) and focused on nine agents (Glybera, Imlygic, Strimvelis, Yescarta, Kymriah, Luxturna, Zynteglo, Zolgensma, Tecartus). Details of cost-utility evaluations and budget impact models were reviewed and extracted. Results: Overall, 983 publications were identified, and 17 studies were included for the analysis. Reviewed evaluations of gene therapies differed in terms of the study perspective, discounting, extrapolation of outcomes based on limited and immature data, time horizon, and adequate estimation of benefits in terms of quality-adjusted life-years. Methods of economic evaluations were in line with the current recommendations; however, long-term follow-up studies are still missing. Conclusions: Discrepancies in an economic evaluation of gene therapies between different HTA bodies are rooted in a lack of general assessment frameworks specific to gene therapies. Although challenges were resolved by adjustments to the currently used value assessment framework, new methodological approaches would be useful. In addition, to improve the methods and quality of an evaluation, further research would be valuable.

Abstract Background Diabetic macular oedema (DMO) may lead to visual loss and blindness. Several pharmacological treatments are available on the National Health Service (NHS) to United Kingdom patients affected by this condition, including intravitreal vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors (anti-VEGFs) and two types of intravitreal steroid implants, releasing dexamethasone or fluocinolone acetonide (FAc). This study aimed to assess the value for money (cost-effectiveness) of the FAc 0.2 μg/day implant (ILUVIEN®) in patients with chronic DMO considered insufficiently responsive to other therapies. Methods We developed a Markov model with a 15-year time horizon to estimate the impact of changes in best-corrected visual acuity in DMO patients on costs and quality-adjusted life years. The model considered both eyes, designated as the “study eye”, defined at model entry as phakic with an ongoing cataract formation or pseudophakic, and the “fellow eye”. The model compared the FAc 0.2 μg/day implant with a 700 μg dexamethasone implant (pseudophakic patients only) or with usual care, defined as a mixture of laser photocoagulation and anti-VEGFs (phakic and pseudophakic patients). Costs were estimated from the perspective of the NHS and Personal Social Services; full NHS prices were used for drugs. Results In patients who were pseudophakic at baseline, at 36 months, the FAc implant provided an additional gain of 4.01 and 3.64 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters compared with usual care and the dexamethasone implant, respectively. Over the 15-year time horizon, this translated into 0.185 additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at an extra cost of £3066 compared with usual care, and 0.126 additional QALYs at an extra cost of £1777 compared with dexamethasone. Thus, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were £16,609 and £14,070 per QALY gained vs. usual care and dexamethasone, respectively. In patients who were phakic at baseline, the FAc 0.2 μg/day implant provided an additional gain of 2.96 ETDRS letters at 36 months compared with usual care, which, over 15 years, corresponded to 0.11 additional QALYs at an extra cost of £3170, resulting in an ICER of £28,751 per QALY gained. Conclusion The FAc 0.2 μg/day implant provided good value for money compared with other established treatments, especially in pseudophakic patients.