Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35765055›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2022

Cost-effectiveness of voretigene neparvovec in the treatment of patients with inherited retinal disease with RPE65 mutation in Switzerland.

Arjun Bhadhuri, Daniel Dröschel, Mike Guldimann, Claudia Jetschgo, Judit Banhazi, Matthias Schwenkglenks, C Simone Sutherland

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00999609 (A Safety and Efficacy Study in Subjects With Leber Congenital Amaurosis), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 45% 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.

NCT00999609 phase3active not recruitingnot on this map

A Safety and Efficacy Study in Subjects With Leber Congenital Amaurosis (LCA) Using Adeno-Associated Viral Vector to Deliver the Gene for Human RPE65 to the Retinal Pigment Epithelium (RPE) [AAV2-hRPE65v2-301]

TypeinterventionalSponsorSpark Therapeutics, Inc.Ran2012 to 2030Enrolled31ConditionsInherited Retinal Dystrophy Due to RPE65 Mutations, Leber Congenital AmaurosisArmsAAV2-hRPE65v2,voretigene neparvovec-rzyl
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Arjun BhadhuriInstitute of Pharmaceutical Medicine (ECPM), University of Basel, Klingelbergstrasse 61, CH-4056, Basel, Switzerland. Arjun.bhadhuri@unibas.ch.
Daniel DröschelInstitute of Pharmaceutical Medicine (ECPM), University of Basel, Klingelbergstrasse 61, CH-4056, Basel, Switzerland.
Mike GuldimannInstitute of Pharmaceutical Medicine (ECPM), University of Basel, Klingelbergstrasse 61, CH-4056, Basel, Switzerland.
Claudia JetschgoNovartis Pharma Schweiz AG, Rotkreuz, ZG, Switzerland.
Judit BanhaziNovartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland.
Matthias SchwenkglenksInstitute of Pharmaceutical Medicine (ECPM), University of Basel, Klingelbergstrasse 61, CH-4056, Basel, Switzerland.
C Simone SutherlandInstitute of Pharmaceutical Medicine (ECPM), University of Basel, Klingelbergstrasse 61, CH-4056, Basel, Switzerland.
University of Basel · CHNovartis (Switzerland) · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveWe aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of voretigene neparvovec (VN) compared with standard of care (SoC) for patients with inherited retinal disease (IRD) caused by a biallelic RPE65-mutation. VN is a live, non-replicating adeno-associated virus serotype 2 (AAV2). SoC is best supportive care provided to patients with visual impairment. Patients under SoC may experience progressive vision loss leading to complete blindness.

methodsWe adapted a previously published Markov cohort model for IRD. An annual cycle length, life-long time horizon, discount rate of 3% for cost and health outcomes, and Swiss health system perspective were used. Data from a randomised controlled phase III trial of VN versus SoC (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00999609) were used to estimate transitions between health states in the first year, after which VN patients were assumed to remain for 39 subsequent years in the health state they were in at the end of the first year. After the 40

resultsFor the base-case, VN resulted in incremental costs per patient of CHF 764'402 (VN: CHF 901'654, SoC: CHF 137'252), incremental blindness-free years of 7.67 (VN: 28.32, SoC: 20.65) and incremental QALYs of 6.73 (VN: 18.35, SoC: 11.62), leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CHF 113'526 per QALY gained. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the cost-effectiveness of VN was better than CHF 100,000 per QALY gained in 41% of iterations. For the scenario analysis in which a societal perspective was adopted and for which a 50% work-related productivity loss from blindness was assumed, incremental costs of CHF 423,837 and an ICER of CHF 62'947 per QALY gained were produced. The scenario assuming VN treatment effect lasts for 20 years produced an ICER of CHF 156'171 per QALY gained, whereas assuming a life-long VN treatment effect resulted in an ICER of CHF 96'384 per QALY gained.

conclusionThe incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of VN compared to the SoC was estimated to be CHF 113'526 and CHF 62'947 per QALY gained, respectively, from a Swiss healthcare system, and societal perspective assuming a 50% productivity loss.

Indexed as

Genetic TherapyRetinal DiseasesClinical Trials, Phase III as TopicCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansMarkov ChainsMutationQuality-Adjusted Life YearsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSwitzerlandCost effectivenessHealth EconomicsInherited retinal diseaseRPE65SwitzerlandVoretigene neparvovec

Identifiers

PMID35765055
PMCPMC9241179
OpenAlexW4283656758

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.