IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharmo/v8y2024i3d10.1007_s41669-024-00480-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Niklaus Meier

    (University of Basel)

  • Hendrik Fuchs

    (Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin)

  • Katya Galactionova

    (University of Basel)

  • Cedric Hermans

    (Université catholique de Louvain (UCLouvain))

  • Mark Pletscher

    (Bern University of Applied Sciences)

  • Matthias Schwenkglenks

    (University of Basel
    University of Basel)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Niklaus Meier & Hendrik Fuchs & Katya Galactionova & Cedric Hermans & Mark Pletscher & Matthias Schwenkglenks, 2024. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Etranacogene Dezaparvovec Versus Extended Half-Life Prophylaxis for Moderate-to-Severe Haemophilia B in Germany," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 8(3), pages 373-387, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:8:y:2024:i:3:d:10.1007_s41669-024-00480-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s41669-024-00480-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41669-024-00480-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s41669-024-00480-z?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:8:y:2024:i:3:d:10.1007_s41669-024-00480-z. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.