Evaluating the Cost-Effectiveness of Etranacogene Dezaparvovec Gene Therapy for Hemophilia B Treatment in the USA.

Appl Health Econ Health Policy

Department of Pharmacy Systems, Outcomes, and Policy, Retzky College of Pharmacy, University of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.

Published: December 2024

AI Article Synopsis

  • - The study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of a new gene therapy, Etranacogene dezaparvovec (EDZ), for severe hemophilia B, comparing it to the traditional treatment, factor IX (FIX) prophylaxis over a lifetime perspective in the U.S.
  • - Results show that despite EDZ costing $3.5 million, it offers lifetime savings of $11 million and slightly improves quality of life by 0.64 QALYs compared to FIX, which has very high annual costs.
  • - The cost-effectiveness of EDZ is influenced significantly by capping annual cost offsets, emphasizing how these limits can help balance price and value for healthcare systems.

Article Abstract

Background: Hemophilia B, a severe genetic disorder, involves substantial treatment costs and frequent interventions. Etranacogene dezaparvovec (EDZ) is a recently approved gene therapy for hemophilia B.

Objective: This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of EDZ compared with conventional factor IX (FIX) prophylaxis.

Methods: A semi-Markov model simulated a cohort of adult males with severe hemophilia B to assess the economic impact of EDZ versus FIX prophylaxis over a lifetime horizon from a health system perspective in the USA. Inputs derived from clinical trials included therapy durability and transition probabilities based on Pettersson Scores. Scenario analyses incorporated frameworks suggested by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review for single or short-term transformative therapies.

Results: Base-case analysis showed that at a cost of US$3.5 million, EDZ led to lifetime cost savings of US$11 million and an additional 0.64 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared with FIX. However, FIX has extremely high annual costs. When annual cost offsets attributed to EDZ were capped at US$150,000, EDZ was found to have a threshold price of US$3.1 million at a willingness-to-pay of US$150,000 per QALY.

Conclusion: EDZ proved to be a dominant strategy over FIX prophylaxis in the base-case scenario, providing large cost savings and slightly better outcomes. The substantial costs associated with FIX are a primary driver behind these results. The introduction of cost-offset caps significantly affects the value-based price of EDZ. Using caps on cost offsets in considering price can help to balance affordability and value in the health system.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40258-024-00932-xDOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

etranacogene dezaparvovec
8
gene therapy
8
therapy hemophilia
8
edz
8
health system
8
cost savings
8
cost offsets
8
cost
5
evaluating cost-effectiveness
4
cost-effectiveness etranacogene
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!