Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Pharmacokinetic-Guided Prophylaxis Versus Standard Prophylaxis in Adults with Severe Hemophilia A in China

Personalized Prophylaxis with myPKFiTCE: A Real-World Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Haemophilia A Patients

Background and Objectives: This study aimed to assess the effectiveness and costs associated with pharmacokinetics-driven (PK) prophylaxis based on the myPKFiT® device in patients affected by hemophilia A (HA) in Italy. Materials and Methods: An observational retrospective study was conducted in three Italian hemophilia centers. All patients with moderate or severe HA, aged ≥ 18 years, capable of having PK estimated using the myPKFiT device, and who had had a clinical visit between 1 November 2019 and 31 March 2022 were included. Differences in clinical, treatment, health resources, and cost data were assessed comparing post-PK prophylaxis with pre-PK. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated as cost (EUR) per bleed avoided. Results: The study enrolled 13 patients with HA. The mean annual bleeding rate decreased by -1.45 (-63.80%, p = 0.0055) after the use of myPKFiT®. Overall, the consumption of FVIII IU increased by 1.73% during follow-up compared to the period prior the use of the myPKFiT. Prophylaxis based on the myPKFiT resulted in an ICER of EUR 5099.89 per bleed avoided. Conclusions: The results of our study support the idea that the use of PK data in clinical practice can be associated with an improvement in the management of patients, as well as clinical outcomes, with a reasonable increase in costs.

Pharmacokinetic-guided versus standard prophylaxis in hemophilia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

With population pharmacokinetic (PK) modeling more readily available and PK-guided prophylaxis endorsed by current hemophilia guidelines, we conducted a systematic review to summarize current evidence in the literature.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of PK-guided compared with non-PK-guided prophylaxis.

METHODS

We did not restrict inclusion to specific study design labels and included all studies consisting of at least one distinct cohort arm receiving PK-guided prophylaxis. We searched the following databases from inception to date of search: MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the EU Clinical Trial Register. Following title, abstract, and full-text screening conducted independently by 2 review authors, we summarized studies qualitatively and synthesized included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) quantitatively by fitting random-effects models.

RESULTS

Search of databases on February 3, 2023, yielded 25 studies fitting our inclusion criteria. Of those, only 2 RCTs and 17 nonrandomized studies included a standard prophylaxis comparator group. Furthermore, risk of bias in the latter was substantial, primarily due to before-after study designs and retrospective comparator groups. Thus, nonrandomized studies were only presented qualitatively. A random-effects meta-analysis of the 2 identified RCT remained inconclusive with regards to bleeding outcomes (ratio of means, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.85-1.56) and factor consumption (ratio of means, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.58-1.18).

CONCLUSION

Evidence in the literature suggesting a clinical benefit of PK-guided over standard fixed-dose prophylaxis was weak and mainly found in nonrandomized studies limited by lack of concurrent controls, heterogeneity in outcome reporting, small sample sizes, and high risk of bias.