ArticleApplied health economics and health policy2025
Evaluating the Cost-Effectiveness of Etranacogene Dezaparvovec Gene Therapy for Hemophilia B Treatment in the USA.
Article in Applied health economics and health policy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Health Economics of Genomic Technologies: A Growing Evidence Base on Value.Applied health economics and health policy · 2025Article
- Lifetime economic burden of hemophilia using a nationwide real-world healthcare data.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHemophilia B, a severe genetic disorder, involves substantial treatment costs and frequent interventions. Etranacogene dezaparvovec (EDZ) is a recently approved gene therapy for hemophilia B.
objectiveThis study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of EDZ compared with conventional factor IX (FIX) prophylaxis.
methodsA semi-Markov model simulated a cohort of adult males with severe hemophilia B to assess the economic impact of EDZ versus FIX prophylaxis over a lifetime horizon from a health system perspective in the USA. Inputs derived from clinical trials included therapy durability and transition probabilities based on Pettersson Scores. Scenario analyses incorporated frameworks suggested by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review for single or short-term transformative therapies.
resultsBase-case analysis showed that at a cost of US$3.5 million, EDZ led to lifetime cost savings of US$11 million and an additional 0.64 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared with FIX. However, FIX has extremely high annual costs. When annual cost offsets attributed to EDZ were capped at US$150,000, EDZ was found to have a threshold price of US$3.1 million at a willingness-to-pay of US$150,000 per QALY.
conclusionEDZ proved to be a dominant strategy over FIX prophylaxis in the base-case scenario, providing large cost savings and slightly better outcomes. The substantial costs associated with FIX are a primary driver behind these results. The introduction of cost-offset caps significantly affects the value-based price of EDZ. Using caps on cost offsets in considering price can help to balance affordability and value in the health system.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39623116What 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.