Making economic evaluations more helpful for treatment choices in haemophilia

Cost-utility analysis of emicizumab for the treatment of severe hemophilia A patients in Canada

INTRODUCTION

EHL FVIII products and emicizumab provide clinicians with other prophylactic options for treating hemophilia A, however, it is unclear if emicizumab is a cost-saving option. The objective of this study is to estimate the health and economic effects of using prophylactic EHL FVIII, SHL FVIII, and emicizumab in severe haemophilia A patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A state-transition Markov model evaluated the cost-effectiveness of prophylactic SHL FVIII, EHL FVIII, and emicizumab in a cohort of 2-year-old male patients over a lifetime horizon in the form of a cost-utility analysis using a Canadian provincial ministry of health payer perspective. The transition probabilities, costs, and utilities were obtained from literature and the Canadian Bleeding Disorders Registry. Probabilistic sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed to test the robustness of the model.

RESULTS

The base-case analysis, over a lifetime horizon, resulted in a total cost and utilities per person for SHL FVIII, EHL FVIII, and emicizumab of $27.2 million (M), $36.7 M, and $26.2 M, respectively, and 31.30, 31.16, and 31.61 quality-adjusted life years, respectively. Emicizumab treatment resulted in 29 and 16 less bleeds in a lifetime compared to SHL FVIII and EHL FVIII, respectively. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that emicizumab was cost-saving 100% of the time compared to SHL FVIII and EHL FVIII.

CONCLUSION

The cost-utility analysis showed that emicizumab is more effective and may be less costly than FVIII for Canadian haemophilia A patients, conditional on drug cost assumptions. Our model indicates that emicizumab may be a potentially favourable treatment option for minimising healthcare costs and providing higher effectiveness.

A scoping review on patient heterogeneity in economic evaluations of precision medicine based on basket trials

INTRODUCTION

Considerable challenges in the economic evaluation of precision medicines have been mentioned in previous studies. However, they have not addressed how an economic assessment would be conducted based on basket trials (novel studies for evaluation of precision medicine effects) in which the included populations have specific biomarkers and various cancers. Since basket trial populations have remarkable heterogeneity, this study aims to investigate the concept of heterogeneity and specific method(s) for considering it in economic evaluations through guidelines and studies that could be applicable in economic evaluation based on basket trials.

AREA COVERED

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Google to find studies and pharmacoeconomics guidelines. The inclusion criteria included subjects of patient heterogeneity and suggested explicit method(s). Thirty-nine guidelines and 43 studies were included and evaluated. None of these materials mentioned disease types in a target population as a factor causing heterogeneity. Moreover, in economic evaluations, patient heterogeneity has been considered with four general approaches subgroup analysis, individual-based models, sensitivity analysis, and regression models.

EXPERT OPINION

Type of disease is not considered a contributing factor in population heterogeneity, and the probable appropriate method for this issue could be individual-based models.

Methodologic and Reporting Quality of Economic Evaluations in Hand and Wrist Surgery: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Economic evaluations can inform decision-making; however, previous publications have identified poor quality of economic evaluations in surgical specialties.

METHODS

Study periods were from January 1, 2006, to April 20, 2020 (methodologic quality) and January 1, 2014, to April 20, 2020 (reporting quality). Primary outcomes were methodologic quality [Guidelines for Authors and Peer Reviewers of Economic Submissions to The BMJ (Drummond's checklist), 33 points; Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES), 100 points; Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC), 19 points] and reporting quality (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Standards (CHEERS) statement, 24 points).

RESULTS

Forty-seven hand economic evaluations were included. Partial economic analyses (i.e., cost analysis) were the most common (n = 34; 72 percent). Average scores of full economic evaluations (i.e., cost-utility analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis) were: Drummond's checklist, 27.08 of 33 (82.05 percent); QHES, 79.76 of 100 (79.76 percent); CHEC, 15.54 of 19 (81.78 percent); and CHEERS, 20.25 of 24 (84.38 percent). Cost utility analyses had the highest methodologic and reporting quality scores: Drummond's checklist, 28.89 of 35 (82.54 percent); QHES, 86.56 of 100 (86.56 percent); CHEC, 16.78 of 19 (88.30 percent); and CHEERS, 20.8 of 24 (86.67 percent). The association (multiple R) between CHEC and CHEERS was strongest: CHEC, 0.953; Drummond's checklist, 0.907; and QHES, 0.909.

CONCLUSIONS

Partial economic evaluations in hand surgery are prevalent but not very useful. The Consensus on Health Economic Criteria and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Standards should be used in tandem when undertaking and evaluating economic evaluation in hand surgery.

Use of Checklists in Reviews of Health Economic Evaluations, 2010 to 2018

OBJECTIVE

It is useful for reviewers of economic evaluations to assess quality in a manner that is consistent and comprehensive. Checklists can allow this, but there are concerns about their reliability and how they are used in practice. We aimed to describe how checklists have been used in systematic reviews of health economic evaluations.

METHODS

Meta-review with snowball sampling. We compiled a list of checklists for health economic evaluations and searched for the checklists' use in systematic reviews from January 2010 to February 2018. We extracted data regarding checklists used, stated checklist function, subject area, number of reviewers, and issues expressed about checklists.

RESULTS

We found 346 systematic reviews since 2010 that used checklists to assess economic evaluations. The most common checklist in use was developed in 1996 by Drummond and Jefferson, and the most common stated use of a checklist was quality assessment. Checklists and their use varied within subject areas; 223 reviews had more than one reviewer who used the checklist.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of checklists is inconsistent. Eighteen individual checklists have been used since 2010, many of which have been used in ways different from those originally intended, often without justification. Different systematic reviews in the same subject areas would benefit from using one checklist exclusively, using checklists as intended, and having 2 reviewers complete the checklist. This would increase the likelihood that results are transparent and comparable over time.

Budget impact analysis of the use of extended half-life recombinant factor VIII (efmoroctocog alfa) for the treatment of congenital haemophilia a: the Italian National Health System perspective

Background

Congenital haemophilia A (HA) is a rare, inherited, life-long bleeding disorder characterised by prolonged or spontaneous bleeding due to the lack of clotting factor VIII (FVIII) in the body. Treatment for HA involves FVIII replacement therapy and poses great economic burden to National Health Systems and to society. Availability of novel products as extended half-life clotting factor products might change treatment approches and their economic evaluation is essential for an informed treatment choice. Accordingly the objective of the present work is to analyse the economic impact of using efmoroctocog alfa (recombinant factor VIII-Fc fusion protein, rFVIIIFc) for the treatment of children and adults with severe congenital haemophilia A (HA).

Methods

A budget impact analysis was performed to estimate the economic impact of the introduction of rFVIIIFc in the market-mix of products for the treatment of HA. The analysis condidered a 3-year time horizon and the Italian National Health System (INHS) perspective. The model estimated drug costs associated with the treatment of HA in the current scenario - representing the marketplace forecast for the time period of interest assuming that rFVIIFc is not introduced - and a new scenario, assuming that rFVIIIFc is available in the market. The size of the target population was calculated using epidemiological national data. Univariate one-way sensitivity analyses and scenario analyses were performed.

Results

Overall 3-year costs of treating the HA population in the current scenario were 555,277,691 Euro for the INHS. With the introduction of rFVIIIFc, the costs were reduced to 541,897,466 Euro suggesting potential savings to the INHS of 13,380,255 Euro. Results were consistent at variation of most of the model’s parameters; only in case of lower dosage of conventional products and higher dosage of rFVIIIFc, costs for the INHS increased, in both cases, of about 20 million Euro.

Conclusions

The use of rFVIIIFc for the treatment of HA has been recently approved by the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) and this is the first study estimating the financial impact of this new therapeutic alternative in the Italian context. The analysis suggests that rFVIIIFc use does not result in higher expenditure for the INHS.

Modern Treatments of Haemophilia: Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses and Future Directions

BACKGROUND

Cost is currently one of the most important aspects in haemophilia care. Factor concentrates absorb more than 90% of healthcare direct costs of haemophilia care, and the debate regarding the high cost of haemophilia treatments and their different use across different countries is increasing.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to review cost-effectiveness analyses conducted on treatment options in haemophilia, focusing on their results and their strengths and limitations; to highlight the possible issues associated with economic evaluations of new treatment options.

METHODS

Electronic searches in PubMed and EMBASE were performed to retrieve papers published between November 2015 and September 2017 to update the previous review of economic evaluations of haemophilia treatments by Drummond et al. Reference lists of included articles and reviews were examined for relevant studies, which were assessed for their quality and their empirical results.

RESULTS

Twenty-six relevant economic analyses were identified; 15 (57.7%) were conducted in patients with haemophilia with inhibitors while 11 (42.3%) involved patients without inhibitors. There were methodological variations among the included studies, and differences in the treatment schemes make a comparative assessment of interventions for patients with haemophilia difficult. Only immune tolerance induction showed consistent results in its cost-saving profile compared with the treatment with bypassing agents.

CONCLUSIONS

Economic evaluations of haemophilia treatments are increasing, but the identification of general cost-effectiveness trends is still difficult in these studies. We are now facing a new era in haemophilia management with a soaring need for high-quality economic evaluations, performed through proactive collaboration between clinical experts, budget holders and health economists.