ArticleBMJ open2025
Modelling US health equity impacts of emicizumab for severe haemophilia A: aggregate distributional cost-effectiveness analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 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.
- The Global Gap in the Hemophilia Paradigm Shift: Disparities in Research, Care, and Musculoskeletal Health.Hematology reports · 2026Review
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
objectivesEmicizumab is the first bispecific antibody approved for prophylaxis in people with haemophilia A with or without factor VIII inhibitors. Aggregate distributional cost-effectiveness analysis assesses health equity impacts by evaluating how health effects and costs from funding an intervention are distributed among population subgroups. The objective was to evaluate how funding emicizumab for people with severe haemophilia A (PwSHA) impacts population health and health disparities in the USA.
designPopulation-level model of PwSHA from the perspective of the US healthcare system, using published sources and considering a lifetime time horizon.
interventionEmicizumab versus other haemophilia A prophylaxis treatments. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained and change in Atkinson index of inequality in quality-adjusted life expectancy.
resultsWhen an estimated 6512 PwSHA in the USA were treated with emicizumab, the US healthcare system would save US$160 billion over those individuals' lifetimes. If these cost savings fund additional healthcare interventions in the overall population, funding emicizumab would improve overall US population health (1 068 903 QALYs gained, using a threshold of US$150 000/QALY) and reduce existing overall US inequities (-0.01% on the Atkinson index).In all scenarios tested for sensitivity, increased emicizumab and prophylaxis utilisation led to further reductions in health disparities and greater increases in population health. Results were robust to deterministic variations in the allocation of cost savings due to emicizumab use.
conclusionFunding emicizumab treatments for PwSHA improves overall population health and reduces overall health inequities in the USA. Cost savings from the use of emicizumab free up important resources that can be leveraged to support other healthcare interventions, but decisions on how these funds are used have large consequences for equity.
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.