Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of rFVIIIFc Versus Contemporary rFVIII Treatments for Patients with Severe Hemophilia A Without Inhibitors in the United States.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
A range of treatments for patients with severe hemophilia A (HA) have been developed over the last decade, allowing for reduced frequency of administration and improved outcomes (joint health and breakthrough bleeding rates). While clinically effective, the cost effectiveness of these treatments has not been established.Objective
This study presents a cost-effectiveness analysis of contemporary rFVIII treatments for severe HA patients without inhibitors.Methods
A published semi-Markov model was used to compare three different prophylaxis regimens: (1) extended half-life (EHL) recombinant Factor VIII (rFVIII) Fc-fusion protein (rFVIIIFc, Eloctate®, Sanofi), (2) EHL PEGylated rFVIII (PEG-rFVIII, Adynovate®, Takeda), and (3) standard half-life (SHL) rFVIII (antihemophilic factor [recombinant], Advate®, Takeda), used as a proxy for all SHL rFVIII treatments. Acquisition costs were included based on published dosing and weight data. Benefits were incorporated through published annualized bleeding rates, rates of target joint development/resolution, and improvements in the modified hemophilia joint health score. Results were presented as total, discounted costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).Results
rFVIIIFc was shown to provide the most QALYs (27.922) compared with both PEG-rFVIII (27.454) and SHL rFVIII (27.071), at lower costs. Discounted lifetime costs were estimated at US$18.235m (rFVIIIFc), US$20.198m (PEG-rFVIII), and US$18.285m (SHL rFVIII), and were predominantly affected by model settings related to acquisition costs, patient weight, and dosing.Conclusions
rFVIIIFc may offer a cost-effective option for severe HA patients. Uncertainties owing to the limited evidence base is the main limitation of the study.
SUBMITTER: Bullement A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8611150 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionThe COVID-19 pandemic is a global crisis impacting population health and the economy. We describe a cost-effectiveness framework for evaluating acute treatments for hospitalized patients with COVID-19, considering a broad spectrum of potential treatment profiles and perspectives within the US healthcare system to ensure incorporation of the most relevant clinical parameters, given evidence currently available.MethodsA lifetime model, with a short-term acute care decision tree followed by a post-discharge three-state Markov cohort model, was developed to estimate the impact of a potential treatment relative to best supportive care (BSC) for patients hospitalized with COVID-19. The model included information on costs and resources across inpatient levels of care, use of mechanical ventilation, post-discharge morbidity from ventilation, and lifetime healthcare and societal costs. Published literature informed clinical and treatment inputs, healthcare resource use, unit costs, and utilities. The potential health impacts and cost-effectiveness outcomes were assessed from US health payer, societal, and fee-for-service (FFS) payment model perspectives.ResultsViewing results in aggregate, treatments that conferred at least a mortality benefit were likely to be cost-effective, as all deterministic and sensitivity analyses results fell far below willingness-to-pay thresholds using both a US health payer and FFS payment perspective, with and without societal costs included. In the base case, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) ranged from $22,933 from a health payer perspective using bundled payments to $8028 from a societal perspective using a FFS payment model. Even with conservative assumptions on societal impact, inclusion of societal costs consistently produced ICERs 40-60% lower than ICERs for the payer perspective.ConclusionEffective COVID-19 treatments for hospitalized patients may not only reduce disease burden but also represent good value for the health system and society. Though data limitations remain, this cost-effectiveness framework expands beyond current models to include societal costs and post-discharge ventilation morbidity effects of potential COVID-19 treatments.
| S-EPMC7919620 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The study was conducted to estimate the relative cost effectiveness of contraceptives in the United States from a payer's perspective.A Markov model was constructed to simulate costs for 16 contraceptive methods and no method over a 5-year period. Failure rates, adverse event rates and resource utilization were derived from the literature. Sensitivity analyses were performed on costs and failure rates.Any contraceptive method is superior to "no method". The three least expensive methods were the copper-T intrauterine device (IUD) (US$647), vasectomy (US$713) and levonorgestrel (LNG)-20 intrauterine system (IUS) (US$930). Results were sensitive to the cost of contraceptive methods, the cost of an unintended pregnancy and plan disenrollment rates.The copper-T IUD, vasectomy and the LNG-20 IUS are the most cost-effective contraceptive methods available in the United States. Differences in method costs, the cost of an unintended pregnancy and time horizon are influential factors that determine the overall value of a contraceptive method.
| S-EPMC3638200 | biostudies-other
Project description:Hemophilia B is a rare congenital blood disorder characterized by factor IX deficiency. Clinical profiles of hemophilia B range from mild to severe forms of the disease. The objective of this study was to characterize the economic burden associated with differing clinical profiles of hemophilia B from a US health system perspective. Using the IBM MarketScan database (June 2011-February 2019), a claims-based algorithm was developed to identify 4 distinct profiles (mild, moderate, moderate-severe, and severe) in adult males with hemophilia B based on the frequency of hemorrhage events and factor IX replacement claims. Mean annual health care resource use (HRU) and costs were statistically compared between patients with hemophilia B (N = 454) and 1:1 demographic-matched controls (N = 454), both overall and with stratification by clinical profile. Compared with matched controls, patients with hemophilia B had a significantly higher comorbidity burden (Charlson Comorbidity Index, mean ± standard deviation [SD]: 0.9 ± 1.7 vs 0.3 ± 0.9, P < .001). Across all clinical profiles, patients with hemophilia B had significantly higher HRU vs matched controls (mean ± SD: 0.3 ± 0.6 vs 0.1 ± 0.3 inpatient admissions; 0.6 ± 1.2 vs 0.2 ± 0.6 emergency department visits; 17.7 ± 22.9 vs 8.0 ± 11.0 outpatient visits; all P < .001). Annual total health care costs per patient among patients with hemophilia B were more than 25-fold higher vs matched controls (mean ± SD: $201 635 ± $411 530 vs $7879 ± $29 040, respectively, P < .001). Annual total health care costs per patient increased with increasing severity (mean ± SD: mild, $80 811 ± $284 313; moderate, $137 455 ± $222 021; moderate-severe, $251 619 ± $576 886; severe, $632 088 ± $501 270). The findings of this study highlight the substantial burden of illness associated with hemophilia B.
| S-EPMC8045501 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We describe a simplified model, based on the current economic and health effects of human papillomavirus (HPV), to estimate the cost-effectiveness of HPV vaccination of 12-year-old girls in the United States. Under base-case parameter values, the estimated cost per quality-adjusted life year gained by vaccination in the context of current cervical cancer screening practices in the United States ranged from $3,906 to $14,723 (2005 US dollars), depending on factors such as whether herd immunity effects were assumed; the types of HPV targeted by the vaccine; and whether the benefits of preventing anal, vaginal, vulvar, and oropharyngeal cancers were included. The results of our simplified model were consistent with published studies based on more complex models when key assumptions were similar. This consistency is reassuring because models of varying complexity will be essential tools for policy makers in the development of optimal HPV vaccination strategies.
| S-EPMC2600200 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Vaccination against pertussis has reduced the disease burden dramatically, but the most severe cases and almost all fatalities occur in infants too young to be vaccinated. Recent epidemiologic evidence suggests that targeted vaccination of mothers during pregnancy can reduce pertussis incidence in their infants. To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of antepartum maternal vaccination in the United States, we created an age-stratified transmission model, incorporating empirical data on US contact patterns and explicitly modeling parent-infant exposure. Antepartum maternal vaccination incurs costs of $114,000 (95% prediction interval: 82,000, 183,000) per quality-adjusted life-year, in comparison with the strategy of no adult vaccination, and is cost-effective in the United States according to World Health Organization criteria. By contrast, vaccinating a second parent is not cost-effective, and vaccination of either parent postpartum is strongly dominated by antepartum maternal vaccination. Nonetheless, postpartum vaccination of mothers who were not vaccinated antepartum improves upon the current recommendation of untargeted adult vaccination. Additionally, the temporary direct protection of the infant due to maternal antibody transfer has efficacy for infants comparable to that conferred to toddlers by the full primary vaccination series. Efficient protection against pertussis for infants begins before birth. We highly recommend antepartum vaccination for as many US mothers as possible.
| S-EPMC4908210 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionIn 2012, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) revised recommendations for adult pneumococcal vaccination to include a sequential regimen of 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) followed by 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23) for certain high-risk adults with immunocompromising conditions. This study, from a payer perspective, examined: (1) the cost-effectiveness of the new 2012 ACIP vaccine policy recommendation relative to the 1997 ACIP recommendation; (2) the cost-effectiveness of potential future pneumococcal vaccination policies; and (3) key assumptions that influence study results.MethodsA static cohort model that incorporated costs, health outcomes, and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) losses associated with invasive pneumococcal disease and non-bacteremic pneumococcal pneumonia (NBPP) was developed to evaluate seven pneumococcal vaccination strategies for a 50-year-old adult cohort over a 50-year period using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).ResultsFor objective 1, the 2012 ACIP recommendation is the more economically efficient strategy (ICER was $25,841 per QALY gained vs. no vaccination). For objective 2, the most efficient vaccination policy would be to maintain the 2012 recommendation for PPSV23 for healthy and immunocompetent adults with comorbidities, and to modify the recommendation for adults with immunocompromising conditions by replacing PPSV23 with a sequential regimen of PCV13 and PPSV23 at age 65 (ICER was $23,416 per QALY gained vs. no vaccination). For objective 3, cost-effectiveness ratios for alternative pneumococcal vaccine policies were highly influenced by assumptions used for vaccine effectiveness against NBPP and accounting for the herd protection effects of pediatric PCV13 vaccination on adult pneumococcal disease.ConclusionModifying the 2012 recommendation to include an additional dose of PCV13 at age 65, followed by PPSV23, for adults with immunocompromising conditions appears to be a cost-effective vaccine policy. Given the uncertainty in the available data and the absence of key influential data, comprehensive sensitivity analyses should be conducted by policy-makers when evaluating new adult pneumococcal vaccine strategies.
| S-EPMC4003344 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIvabradine is a heart rate-lowering agent approved to reduce the risk of hospitalization for worsening heart failure. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of adding ivabradine to background therapy in the United States from the perspective of a commercial or Medicare Advantage payer.Methods and resultsA cost-effectiveness, cohort-based Markov model using a state transition approach tracked a cohort of heart failure patients with heart rate ≥70 beats per minute in sinus rhythm who were treated with ivabradine+background therapy or background therapy alone. Model inputs, including adjusted hazard ratios, rates of hospitalization and mortality, adverse events, and utility-regression equations, were derived from a large US claims database and SHIFT (Systolic Heart failure treatment with the If inhibitor ivabradine Trial). In the commercial population, ivabradine+background therapy was associated with a cost savings of $8594 versus the cost of background therapy alone over a 10-year time horizon, primarily because of reduced hospitalization. Ivabradine was associated with an incremental benefit of 0.24 quality-adjusted life years over a 10-year time horizon. In the Medicare Advantage population, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for ivabradine was estimated to be $24 920/quality-adjusted life years.ConclusionsThe cost-effectiveness model suggests that for a commercial population, the addition of ivabradine to background therapy was associated with cost savings and improved clinical outcomes. For a Medicare Advantage population, the analysis indicates that the clinical benefit of ivabradine can be achieved at a reasonable cost.
| S-EPMC4889192 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe literature on the cost-effectiveness of statin drugs in primary prevention of coronary heart disease is complex. The objective of this study is to compare the disparate results of recent cost-effectiveness analyses of statins.FindingsWe conducted a systematic review of the literature on statin cost-effectiveness. The four studies that met inclusion criteria reported varying conclusions about the cost-effectiveness of statin treatment, without a clear consensus as to whether statins are cost-effective for primary prevention. However, after accounting for each study's assumptions about statin costs, we found substantial agreement among the studies. Studies that assumed statins to be more expensive found them to be less cost-effective, and vice-versa. Furthermore, treatment of low-risk groups became cost-effective as statins became less expensive.ConclusionsDrug price is the primary determinant of statin cost-effectiveness within a given risk group. As more statin drugs become generic, patients at low risk for coronary disease may be treated cost-effectively. Though many factors must be weighed in any medical decision, from a cost-effectiveness perspective, statins may now be considered an appropriate therapy for many patients at low risk for heart disease.
| S-EPMC3444438 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background:In the United States, the routine age for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination is 11 to 12 years, with catch-up vaccination through age 26 years for women and 21 years for men. U.S. vaccination policy on use of the 9-valent HPV vaccine in adult women and men is being reviewed. Objective:To evaluate the added population-level effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of extending the current U.S. HPV vaccination program to women aged 27 to 45 years and men aged 22 to 45 years. Design:The analysis used HPV-ADVISE (Agent-based Dynamic model for VaccInation and Screening Evaluation), an individual-based transmission dynamic model of HPV infection and associated diseases, calibrated to age-specific U.S. data. Data Sources:Published data. Target Population:Women aged 27 to 45 years and men aged 22 to 45 years in the United States. Time Horizon:100 years. Perspective:Health care sector. Intervention:9-valent HPV vaccination. Outcome Measures:HPV-associated outcomes prevented and cost-effectiveness ratios. Results of Base-Case Analysis:The model predicts that the current U.S. HPV vaccination program will reduce the number of diagnoses of anogenital warts and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grade 2 or 3 and cases of cervical cancer and noncervical HPV-associated cancer by 82%, 80%, 59%, and 39%, respectively, over 100 years and is cost saving (vs. no vaccination). In contrast, extending vaccination to women and men aged 45 years is predicted to reduce these outcomes by an additional 0.4, 0.4, 0.2, and 0.2 percentage points, respectively. Vaccinating women and men up to age 30, 40, and 45 years is predicted to cost $830 000, $1 843 000, and $1 471 000, respectively, per quality-adjusted life-year gained (vs. current vaccination). Results of Sensitivity Analysis:Results were most sensitive to assumptions about natural immunity and progression rates after infection, historical vaccination coverage, and vaccine efficacy. Limitation:Uncertainty about the proportion of HPV-associated disease due to infections after age 26 years and about the level of herd effects from the current HPV vaccination program. Conclusion:The current HPV vaccination program is predicted to be cost saving. Extending vaccination to older ages is predicted to produce small additional health benefits and result in substantially higher incremental cost-effectiveness ratios than the current recommendation. Primary Funding Source:Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
| S-EPMC7217714 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A randomized trial has demonstrated that lung cancer screening reduces mortality. Identifying participant and program characteristics that influence the cost-effectiveness of screening will help translate trial results into benefits at the population level.Six U.S. cohorts (men and women aged 50, 60, or 70 years) were simulated in an existing patient-level lung cancer model. Smoking histories reflected observed U.S. patterns. We simulated lifetime histories of 500,000 identical individuals per cohort in each scenario. Costs per quality-adjusted life-year gained ($/QALY) were estimated for each program: computed tomography screening; stand-alone smoking cessation therapies (4-30% 1-year abstinence); and combined programs.Annual screening of current and former smokers aged 50 to 74 years costs between $126,000 and $169,000/QALY (minimum 20 pack-years of smoking) or $110,000 and $166,000/QALY (40 pack-year minimum), when compared with no screening and assuming background quit rates. Screening was beneficial but had a higher cost per QALY when the model included radiation-induced lung cancers. If screen participation doubled background quit rates, the cost of annual screening (at age 50 years, 20 pack-year minimum) was below $75,000/QALY. If screen participation halved background quit rates, benefits from screening were nearly erased. If screening had no effect on quit rates, annual screening costs more but provided fewer QALYs than annual cessation therapies. Annual combined screening/cessation therapy programs at age 50 years costs $130,500 to $159,700/QALY, when compared with annual stand-alone cessation.The cost-effectiveness of computed tomography screening will likely be strongly linked to achievable smoking cessation rates. Trials and further modeling should explore the consequences of relationships between smoking behaviors and screen participation.
| S-EPMC3202298 | biostudies-literature