ArticleJournal of managed care & specialty pharmacy2020
Model of Short- and Long-Term Outcomes of Emicizumab Prophylaxis Treatment for Persons with Hemophilia A.
Article in Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Systematic Review of Modelling Approaches in Economic Evaluations of Treatments for Inherited Bleeding Disorders.Applied health economics and health policy · 2026Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness of emicizumab for the treatment of hemophilia A: a systematic review.Frontiers in public health · 2025Pooled it
- Non-clotting factor therapies for preventing bleeds in people with congenital hemophilia A or B.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Model-Based Economic Analyses of Haemophilia from a Societal Perspective: A Scoping Review.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2026Review
- Article
- Prophylactic Weekly Efanesoctocog Alfa Versus Standard-Care Factor VIII in People Living With Severe Hemophilia A : A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.Annals of internal medicine · 2025Article
- Evaluating the Cost-Effectiveness of Etranacogene Dezaparvovec Gene Therapy for Hemophilia B Treatment in the USA.Applied health economics and health policy · 2025Article
- A Prospective, Noninterventional Study to Evaluate the Impact of Emicizumab in the Management of Hemophilia A.Cureus · 2024Article
- Ultrasound-mediated gene delivery specifically targets liver sinusoidal endothelial cells for sustained FVIII expression in hemophilia A mice.Molecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy · 2024Article
- Review
- Gene therapy may not be as expensive as people think: challenges in assessing the value of single and short-term therapies.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2021Article
- Bridging the Missing Link with Emicizumab: A Bispecific Antibody for Treatment of Hemophilia A.Thrombosis and haemostasis · 2020Review
- Emicizumab: A Review in Haemophilia A.Drugs · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHemophilia A (HA) can result in bleeding events because of low or absent clotting factor VIII (FVIII). Prophylactic treatment for severe HA includes replacement FVIII infusions and emicizumab, a bispecific factor IXa- and factor X-directed antibody.
objectiveTo develop an economic model to predict the short- and long-term clinical and economic outcomes of prophylaxis with emicizumab versus short-acting recombinant FVIII among persons with HA in the United States.
methodsA Markov model was developed to compare clinical outcomes and costs of emicizumab versus FVIII prophylaxis among persons with severe HA from U.S. payer and societal perspectives. Patients started prophylaxis at age 1 year in the base case. Mutually exclusive health states considered were "no arthropathy," "arthropathy," "surgery," and "death." Serious adverse events, breakthrough bleeds, and inhibitor development were simulated throughout the modeled time horizon. In addition to the prophylaxis drug costs, patients could incur other direct costs related to breakthrough bleeds treatment, serious adverse events, development of inhibitors, arthropathy, and orthopedic surgery. Indirect costs associated with productivity loss (i.e., missed work or disabilities) were applied for adults. Model inputs were obtained from the HAVEN 3 trial, published literature, and expert opinion. The model used a lifetime horizon, and results for 1 year and 5 years were also reported. Deterministic sensitivity analyses and scenario analyses were conducted to assess robustness of the model.
resultsOver a lifetime horizon, the cumulative number of all treated bleeds and joint bleeds avoided on emicizumab versus FVIII prophylaxis were 278.2 and 151.7, respectively. Correspondingly, arthropathy (mean age at onset: 12.9 vs. 5.4 years) and FVIII inhibitor development (mean age at development: 13.9 vs. 1.1 years) were delayed. Total direct and indirect costs were lower for emicizumab versus FVIII prophylaxis for all modeled time horizons ($97,159 vs. $331,610 at 1 year; $603,146 vs. $1,459,496 at 5 years; and $15,238,072 vs. $22,820,281 over a lifetime horizon). The sensitivity analyses indicated that clinical outcomes were sensitive to efficacy inputs, while economic outcomes were driven by the discount rate, dosing schedules, and treatments after inhibitor development. Results for moderate to severe patients were consistent with findings in the severe HA population.
conclusionsThe model suggests that emicizumab prophylaxis confers additional clinical benefits, resulting in a lower number of bleeding events and delayed onset of arthropathy and inhibitor development across all time assessment horizons. Compared with short-acting recombinant FVIII, emicizumab prophylaxis leads to superior patient outcomes and cost savings from U.S. payer and societal perspectives. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this study was provided by Genentech. Raimundo and Patel are employees of Genentech and own stock or stock options. Zhou, Han, Ji, Fang, Zhong, and Betts are employees of Analysis Group, which received consultancy fees from Genentech for conducting this study. Mahajerin received consultancy fees from Genentech for work on this study. Portions of this research were presented as a poster at the 2018 American Society of Hematology Conference; December 1-4, 2018; San Diego, CA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.