Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Etranacogene Dezaparvovec Versus Extended Half-Life Prophylaxis for Moderate-to-Severe Haemophilia B in Germany
Version
Published
Date Issued
2024
Author(s)
Fuchs, Hendrik
Galactionova, Katya
Hermans, Cedric
Pletscher, Mark
Schwenkglenks, Matthias
Type
Article
Language
English
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.
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.
Subjects
RA Public aspects of medicine
RS Pharmacy and materia medica
Publisher DOI
Journal
PharmacoEconomics Open
ISSN
2509-4262
Sponsors
This project has been funded, in part, by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under Grant agreement No. 825730.
Volume
8
Issue
3
Publisher
Springer
Submitter
MeierN
Citation apa
Meier, N., Fuchs, H., Galactionova, K., Hermans, C., Pletscher, M., & Schwenkglenks, M. (2024). Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Etranacogene Dezaparvovec Versus Extended Half-Life Prophylaxis for Moderate-to-Severe Haemophilia B in Germany. In PharmacoEconomics Open (Vol. 8, Issue 3). Springer. https://doi.org/10.24451/arbor.21790
File(s)![Thumbnail Image]()
Loading...
open access
Name
s41669-024-00480-z.pdf
License
Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International
Version
published
Size
1.53 MB
Format
Adobe PDF
Checksum (MD5)
c7197da2c1d10503cf13dcbb654695fd
