Dataset Information

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of rFVIIIFc Versus Contemporary rFVIII Treatments for Patients with Severe Hemophilia A Without Inhibitors in the United States.

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

ACCESS DATA

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.

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.

Project description:ObjectiveIsolated coronary artery bypass grafting and aortic valve replacement are common cardiac operations performed in the United States and serve as platforms for benchmarking. The present national study characterized hospital-level variation in costs and value for coronary artery bypass grafting and aortic valve replacement.MethodsAdults undergoing elective, isolated coronary artery bypass grafting or aortic valve replacement were identified in the 2016-2018 Nationwide Readmissions Database. Center quality was defined by the proportion of patients without an adverse outcome (death, stroke, respiratory failure, pneumonia, sepsis, acute kidney injury, and reoperation). High-value hospitals were defined as those with observed-to-expected ratios less than 1 for costs and greater than 1 for quality, whereas the converse defined low-value centers.ResultsOf 318,194 patients meeting study criteria, 71.9% underwent isolated coronary artery bypass grafting and 28.1% underwent aortic valve replacement. Variation in hospital-level costs was evident, with median center-level cost of $36,400 (interquartile range, 29,500-46,700) for isolated coronary artery bypass grafting and $38,400 (interquartile range, 32,300-47,700) for aortic valve replacement. Observed-to-expected ratios for quality ranged from 0.2 to 10.9 for isolated coronary artery bypass grafting and 0.1 to 11.7 for isolated aortic valve replacement. Hospital factors, including volume and quality, contributed to approximately 9.9% and 11.2% of initial cost variation for isolated coronary artery bypass grafting and aortic valve replacement. High-value centers had greater cardiac surgery operative volume and were more commonly teaching hospitals compared to low-value centers, but had similar patient risk profiles.ConclusionsSignificant variation in hospital costs, quality, and value exists for 2 common cardiac operations. Center volume was associated with value and partly accounts for variation in costs. Our findings suggest the need for value-based care paradigms to reduce expenditures and optimize outcomes.