ArticleBlood advances2025
Cost-effectiveness of Voncento prophylaxis vs on-demand treatment in von Willebrand disease in the United Kingdom.
Article in Blood advances, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
abstractvon Willebrand factor (VWF) concentrates may be required for on-demand treatment (ODT) or long-term prophylaxis (LTP) in von Willebrand disease (VWD). This study assesses the cost-effectiveness of LTP compared with ODT in patients with VWD treated with Voncento in the United Kingdom. A Markov structure was developed to estimate the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs of VWD treatment over a lifetime horizon. Treatment options included ODT or LTP. For both options, we assumed plasma-derived VWF/factor VIII 2.4:1 (Voncento) as the VWF product used. Clinical parameters were obtained from published literature and Voncento's summary characteristics. Utility weights were obtained from published literature. Costs (in 2021 GBP [£]) and outcomes were discounted annually by 3.5%. Sensitivity analyses were conducted. Three baseline annual bleed rate (ABR) scenarios (11, 26.5, and 39.6) were considered. In the base-case analyses, Voncento LTP resulted in lower costs (-£831 206) and greater QALYs (6.14) vs ODT. Savings were primarily due to reductions in product use required (-£529 571) and bleed-related other medical costs (-£301 352). Compared with ODT, LTP also resulted in 322.52 fewer major bleeds and 515.68 fewer minor bleeds over a lifetime horizon. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed dominance in 96.12% of simulations and cost-effectiveness in 97.68% of simulations. For the 39.6 ABR scenario also, LTP was dominant compared with ODT. Results suggest that Voncento LTP is more effective and cost saving than ODT in the United Kingdom for patients with VWD with higher ABR. Prophylaxis for patients with frequent bleeds is likely to be a cost-saving and effective strategy.
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.