Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38252942›Full record

ArticleAnnals of internal medicine2024

Gene Therapy Versus Common Care for Eligible Individuals With Sickle Cell Disease in the United States : A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Anirban Basu, Aaron N Winn, Kate M Johnson, Boshen Jiao, Beth Devine, Jane S Hankins, Staci D Arnold, M A Bender, Scott D Ramsey

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of internal medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
9.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Gene therapy: The current trajectory of clinical and commercial translation.Progress in biophysics and molecular biology · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

9 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Anirban BasuThe Comparative Health Outcomes, Policy & Economics (CHOICE) Institute, Department of Pharmacy; Department of Health Systems and Population Health; and Department of Economics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington (A.B.).ORCID 0000-0003-4238-7402
Aaron N WinnPharmacy Administration, Department of Clinical Sciences, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin (A.N.W.).ORCID 0000-0003-2906-3913
Kate M JohnsonThe Comparative Health Outcomes, Policy & Economics (CHOICE) Institute, Department of Pharmacy, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, and Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Division of Respiratory Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada (K.M.J.).ORCID 0000-0001-7406-2448
Boshen JiaoThe Comparative Health Outcomes, Policy & Economics (CHOICE) Institute, Department of Pharmacy, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, and Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts (B.J.).
Beth DevineThe Comparative Health Outcomes, Policy & Economics (CHOICE) Institute, Department of Pharmacy, and Department of Health Systems and Population Health, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington (B.D.).ORCID 0000-0001-9945-6099
Jane S HankinsDepartment of Global Pediatric Medicine and Department of Hematology, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee (J.S.H.).ORCID 0000-0003-4439-7321
Staci D ArnoldAflac Cancer and Blood Disorders Center at Children's Healthcare of Atlanta, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia (S.D.A.).
M A BenderDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Washington, and Clinical Research Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington (M.A.B.).ORCID 0000-0001-5330-6255
Scott D RamseyDivision of Public Health Sciences and Hutchinson Institute for Cancer Outcomes Research, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, and the Comparative Health Outcomes, Policy & Economics (CHOICE) Institute, Department of Pharmacy, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, and Pharmacy Administration, Department of Clinical Sciences, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin (S.D.R.).ORCID 0000-0001-5972-8280
University of Washington · USMedical College of Wisconsin · USEmory University · USSt. Jude Children's Research Hospital · USUniversity of British Columbia · CA

Funding

Methods and Data CoreR24HD042828 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI CURRAN, SARA R. · 2002 to 2016
$9.3M
Scientific/Technical CoreP2CHD042828 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI Daniel T A Eisenberg · 2017 to 2026
$6.3M
Model for Economic Analysis of Sickle cell cURE (MEASURE)OT3HL152448 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI BASU, ANIRBAN · 2019 to 2019
$3.3M
The Cure Sickle Cell Initiative Economic Analysis: An Evaluation of the Costs of Sickle Cell Disease and Potential Health Plan Budget Impacts of Gene Therapy as a New Treatment OptionOT3HL151434 · NHLBI · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI RAMSEY, SCOTT D. · 2019 to 2019
$728k
NHLBI NIH HHS OT3 HL151434NHLBI NIH HHS OT3 HL152448NICHD NIH HHS P2C HD042828NICHD NIH HHS R24 HD042828
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSickle cell disease (SCD) and its complications contribute to high rates of morbidity and early mortality and high cost in the United States and African heritage community.

objectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of gene therapy for SCD and its value-based prices (VBPs).

designComparative modeling analysis across 2 independently developed simulation models (University of Washington Model for Economic Analysis of Sickle Cell Cure [UW-MEASURE] and Fred Hutchinson Institute Sickle Cell Disease Outcomes Research and Economics Model [FH-HISCORE]) using the same databases. DATA SOURCES: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services claims data, 2008 to 2016; published literature. TARGET POPULATION: Persons eligible for gene therapy. TIME HORIZON: Lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: U.S. health care sector and societal.

interventionGene therapy versus common care. OUTCOME MEASURES: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), equity-informed VBPs, and price acceptability curves. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: At an assumed $2 million price for gene therapy, UW-MEASURE and FH-HISCORE estimated ICERs of $193 000 per QALY and $427 000 per QALY, respectively, under the health care sector perspective. Corresponding estimates from the societal perspective were $126 000 per QALY and $281 000 per QALY. The difference in results between models stemmed primarily from considering a slightly different target population and incorporating the quality-of-life (QOL) effects of splenic sequestration, priapism, and acute chest syndrome in the UW model. From a societal perspective, acceptable (>90% confidence) VBPs ranged from $1 million to $2.5 million depending on the use of alternative effective metrics or equity-informed threshold values. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: Results were sensitive to the costs of myeloablative conditioning before gene therapy, effect on caregiver QOL, and effect of gene therapy on long-term survival. LIMITATION: The short-term effects of gene therapy on vaso-occlusive events were extrapolated from 1 study.

conclusionGene therapy for SCD below a $2 million price tag is likely to be cost-effective when applying a societal perspective at an equity-informed threshold for cost-effectiveness analysis. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Indexed as

Anemia, Sickle CellCost-Effectiveness AnalysisAgedCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansMaleMedicareQuality-Adjusted Life YearsQuality of LifeUnited States

Identifiers

PMID38252942
PMCPMC11657757
OpenAlexW4391095721

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.