Back to Search Start Over

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Etranacogene Dezaparvovec Versus Extended Half-Life Prophylaxis for Moderate-to-Severe Haemophilia B in Germany.

Authors :
Meier, Niklaus
Fuchs, Hendrik
Galactionova, Katya
Hermans, Cedric
Pletscher, Mark
Schwenkglenks, Matthias
Source :
PharmacoEconomics - Open; May2024, Vol. 8 Issue 3, p373-387, 15p
Publication Year :
2024

Abstract

Background and Objective: Haemophilia B is a rare genetic disease that is caused by a deficiency of coagulation factor IX (FIX) in the blood and leads to internal and external bleeding. Under the current standard of care, haemophilia is treated either prophylactically or on-demand via intravenous infusions of FIX. These treatment strategies impose a high burden on patients and health care systems as haemophilia B requires lifelong treatment, and FIX is costly. Etranacogene dezaparvovec (ED) is a gene therapy for haemophilia B that has been recently approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration and has received a recommendation for conditional marketing authorization by the European Medicines Agency. We aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of ED versus extended half-life FIX (EHL-FIX) prophylaxis for moderate-to-severe haemophilia B from a German health care payer perspective. Methods: A microsimulation model was implemented in R. The model used data from the ED phase 3 clinical trial publication and further secondary data sources to simulate and compare patients receiving ED or EHL-FIX prophylaxis over a lifetime horizon, with the potential for ED patients to switch treatment to EHL-FIX prophylaxis when the effectiveness of ED waned. Primary outcomes of this analysis included discounted total costs, discounted quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness, and the incremental net monetary benefit. The annual discount rate for costs and effects was 3%. Uncertainty was examined via probabilistic analysis and additional univariate sensitivity analyses. Results: Probabilistic analysis indicated that patients treated with ED instead of EHL-FIX prophylaxis gained 0.50 QALYs and experienced cost savings of EUR 1,179,829 at a price of EUR 1,500,000 per ED treatment. ED was the dominant treatment strategy. At a willingness to pay of EUR 50,000/QALY, the incremental net monetary benefit amounted to EUR 1,204,840. Discussion: Depending on the price, ED can save costs and improve health outcomes of haemophilia patients compared with EHL-FIX prophylaxis, making it a potentially cost-effective alternative. These results are uncertain due to a lack of evidence regarding the long-term effectiveness of ED. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
25094254
Volume :
8
Issue :
3
Database :
Complementary Index
Journal :
PharmacoEconomics - Open
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
177950465
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1007/s41669-024-00480-z