Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35141470›Full record

ArticleHemaSphere2022

Modeling Benefits, Costs, and Affordability of a Novel Gene Therapy in Hemophilia A.

Renske M T Ten Ham, Sikon M Walker, Marta O Soares, Geert W J Frederix, Frank W G Leebeek, Kathelijn Fischer, Michiel Coppens, Stephen J Palmer

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in HemaSphere, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. The Arrival of Gene Therapy for Patients with Hemophilia A.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Renske M T Ten HamDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology of the Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences (UIPS), The Netherlands.
Sikon M WalkerCentre for Health Economics, University of York, United Kingdom.
Marta O SoaresCentre for Health Economics, University of York, United Kingdom.
Geert W J FrederixDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology of the Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences (UIPS), The Netherlands.
Frank W G LeebeekDepartment of Hematology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Kathelijn FischerDivision Internal Medicine and Dermatology, Van Creveldkliniek, University Medical Center Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Michiel CoppensDepartment of Vascular Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, The Netherlands.
Stephen J PalmerCentre for Health Economics, University of York, United Kingdom.
University Medical Center Utrecht · NLUniversity of York · GBErasmus MC · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The objective was to undertake an early cost-effectiveness assessment of valoctocogene roxaparvovec (valrox; Roctavian) compared to factor (F)VIII prophylaxis or emicizumab (Hemlibra; Roche HQ, Bazel, Switzerland) in patients with severe Hemophilia A (HA) without FVIII-antibodies. We also aimed to incorporate and quantify novel measures of value such as treatment durability, maximum value-based price (MVBP) and break-even time (ie, time until benefits begin to offset upfront payment). We constructed a Markov model to model bleeds over time which were linked to costs and quality-of-life decrements. In the valrox arm, FVIII over time was estimated combining initial effect and treatment waning and then linked to bleeds. In FVIII and emicizumab arms, bleeds were based on trial evidence. Evidence and assumptions were validated using expert elicitation. Model robustness was tested via sensitivity analyses. A Dutch societal perspective was applied with a 10-year time horizon. Valrox in comparison to FVIII, and emicizumab showed small increases in quality-adjusted life years at lower costs, and were therefore dominant. Valrox' base case MVBP was estimated at €2.65 million/treatment compared to FVIII and €3.5 million/treatment versus emicizumab. Mean break-even time was 8.03 years compared to FVIII and 5.68 years to emicizumab. Early modeling of patients with HA in The Netherlands treated with valrox resulted in estimated improved health and lower cost compared to prophylactic FVIII and emicizumab. We also demonstrated feasibility of incorporation of treatment durability and novel outcomes such as value-based pricing scenarios and break-even time. Future work should aim to better characterize uncertainties and increase translation of early modeling to direct research efforts.

Identifiers

PMID35141470
PMCPMC8820916
OpenAlexW4210456579

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.