Cost of patients with hemophilia A treated with standard half-life or extended half-life FVIII in Spain

Shifting Paradigms and Arising Concerns in Severe Hemophilia A Treatment

The management of hemophilia A has undergone a remarkable revolution, in line with technological advancement. In the recent past, the primary concern associated with Factor VIII (FVIII) concentrates was the risk of infections, which is now almost resolved by advanced blood screening and viral inactivation methods. Improving patients' compliance with prophylaxis has become a key focus, as it can lead to improved health outcomes and reduced health care costs in the long term. Recent bioengineering research is directed toward prolonging the recombinant FVIII (rFVIII) coagulant activity and synthesising higher FVIII yields. As an outcome, B-domain deleted, polyethylene glycolated, single-chain, Fc-fused rFVIII, and rFVIIIFc-von Willebrand Factor-XTEN are available for patients. Moreover, emicizumab, a bispecific antibody, is commercially available, whereas fitusiran and tissue factor pathway inhibitor are in clinical trial stages as alternative strategies for patients with inhibitors. With these advancements, noninfectious complications, such as inhibitor development, allergic reactions, and thrombosis, are emerging concerns requiring careful management. In addition, the recent approval of gene therapy is a major milestone toward a permanent cure for hemophilia A. The vast array of treatment options at our disposal today empowers patients and providers alike, to tailor therapeutic regimens to the unique needs of each individual. Despite significant progress in modern treatment options, these highly effective therapies are markedly more expensive than conventional replacement therapy, limiting their access for patients in developing countries.

Cost-effectiveness of weekly gastro-resistant risedronate 35 mg, compared with weekly alendronate 70 mg tablets, in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis in Spain

Aim: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of treating postmenopausal osteoporosis (PMO) with weekly gastro-resistant risedronate 35 mg gastro-resistant tablets (RIS-GR), compared with weekly alendronate 70 mg tablets (ALN) in Spain. Methods: A probabilistic analysis (second-order Monte Carlo simulation) was performed with a time horizon of 5 years, from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System. The bone fracture probabilities were obtained from a cohort study of 3614 women from USA with PMO treated with RIS-GR (1807) or ALN (1807) (Thomasius, 2022). The pharmacological cost and the cost of fractures were obtained from Spanish sources (€ 2022). The utilities of patients with and without fracture (quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]) were obtained from the medical literature. Results: Compared with ALN, treatment with RIS-GR can avoid 79 fractures (between 75 and 82) every 1000 patients treated, and 0.0119 QALYs would be gained (between 0.0098 and 0.0140) per patient. Additionally, GR-RIS would generate a cost saving per patient of €1994 (€1437-2904) with a probability of 99.7%. The scenario analyses confirmed the stability of the base case results. Conclusion: According to this study, RIS-GR would be the dominant treatment (lower costs with QALY gain) compared with ALN.

Hemophilia gene therapy: first, do no harm

The introduction of adeno-associated virus-mediated, liver-directed gene therapy into the hemophilia treatment landscape brings not only great promise but also considerable uncertainty to a community that has a history punctuated by the devastating effects of HIV and hepatitis C virus. These infections were introduced into people with hemophilia through the innovation of factor concentrates in the 1970s and 1980s. Concentrates, heralded as a major advance in treatment at the time, brought devastation and death to the community already challenged by the complications of bleeding into joints, vital organs, and the brain. Over the past 5 decades, considerable advances in hemophilia treatment have improved the survival, quality of life, and participation of people with hemophilia, although challenges remain and health equity with their unaffected peers has not yet been achieved. The decision to take a gene therapy product is one in which an informed, holistic, and shared decision-making approach must be employed. Bias on the part of health care professionals and people with hemophilia must be addressed and minimized. Here, we review data leading to the regulatory authorization of valoctocogene roxaparvovec, an adeno-associated virus 5 gene therapy, in Europe to treat hemophilia A and etranacogene dezaparvovec-drlb in the United States and Europe to treat hemophilia B. We also provide an overview of the decision-making process and recommend steps that should be taken by the hemophilia community to ensure the safety of and optimal outcomes for people with hemophilia who choose to receive a gene therapy product.

Clinical, humanistic, and economic burden of severe haemophilia B in adults receiving factor IX prophylaxis: findings from the CHESS II real-world burden of illness study in Europe

BACKGROUND

Real-world studies of the burden of severe haemophilia B in the context of recent therapeutic advances such as extended half-life (EHL) factor IX (FIX) products are limited. We analysed data from the recent CHESS II study to better understand the clinical, humanistic, and economic burden of severe haemophilia B in Europe. Data from male adults with severe haemophilia B receiving prophylaxis were analysed from the retrospective cross-sectional CHESS II study conducted in Germany, France, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom. Inhibitors were exclusionary. Patients and physicians completed questionnaires on bleeding, joint status, quality of life, and haemophilia-related direct and indirect costs (2019-2020). All outcomes were summarised using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

A total of 75 CHESS II patients were eligible and included; 40 patients (53%) provided self-reported outcomes. Mean age was 36.2 years. Approximately half the patients were receiving EHL versus standard half-life (SHL) prophylaxis (44% vs 56%). Most patients reported mild or moderate chronic pain (76%) and had ≥ 2 bleeding events per year (70%), with a mean annualised bleed rate of 2.4. Mean annual total haemophilia-related direct medical cost per patient was €235,723, driven by FIX costs (€232,328 overall, n = 40; €186,528 for SHL, €290,620 for EHL). Mean annual indirect costs (€8,973) were driven by early retirement or work stoppage due to haemophilia. Mean quality of life (EQ-5D) score was 0.67.

CONCLUSIONS

These data document a substantial, persistent real-world burden of severe haemophilia B in Europe. Unmet needs persist for these patients, their caregivers, and society.

Bleeding outcomes and factor utilization after switching to an extended half-life product for prophylaxis in haemophilia A in Austria

To prevent bleeding in severe haemophilia A [SHA, defined as factor VIII (FVIII) activity < 1%] regular prophylactic FVIII replacement therapy is required, and the benefits of factor products with extended half-life (EHL) over traditional standard half-life (SHL) are still being debated. We performed a multi-centre, retrospective cohort study of persons with SHA in Austria aiming to compare clinical outcomes and factor utilization in patients with SHA, who switched from prophylaxis with SHL to an EHL. Data were collected from haemophilia-specific patient diaries and medical records. Twenty male persons with SHA (median age: 32.5 years) were included. The most common reason for switching to the EHL was a high bleeding rate with SHL. Switch to rFVIII-Fc resulted in a significantly decreased annualized bleeding rate (ABR; median difference (IQR): − 0.3 (− 4.5–0); Wilcoxon signed-rank test for matched pairs: Z = − 2.7, p = 0.008) and number of prophylactic infusions per week (− 0.75 (− 1.0–0.0); Z = − 2.7, p = 0.007). Factor utilization was comparable to prior prophylaxis with SHL (0.0 (− 15.8–24.8) IU/kg/week; Z = − 0.4, p = 0.691). In summary, switch to EHL (rFVIII-Fc) was associated with an improved clinical outcome, reflected by ABR reduction, and less frequent infusions, without significantly higher factor usage.