SynthesisFrontiers in public health2025
Cost-effectiveness of emicizumab for the treatment of hemophilia A: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in public health, 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.
- Emicizumab enables rapid tolerance, reducing bleeding during low-dose ITI in pediatric hemophilia A.Blood vessels, thrombosis & hemostasis · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Autoimmune FVIII Inhibitor Using Clot Waveform Analysis in Emicizumab-Treated Patients.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Emicizumab, a bispecific factor IXa- and factor X-directed antibody indicated for routine prophylaxis of bleeding episodes in people with hemophilia A, can impose a significant financial burden. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the reporting quality of existing pharmacoeconomic studies on emicizumab, and to synthesize its cost-effectiveness for hemophilia A treatment. Methods: Databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, Health Technology Assessment, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP China Science and Technology Journal database, and WanFang were searched for pharmacoeconomic studies on emicizumab. The general information, methods, and results of the retrieved studies were analyzed. The reporting quality of the studies was evaluated with the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 checklist. Results: A total of 163 studies were retrieved, and 17 studies were further analyzed. Emicizumab was compared to bypassing agents (BPAs), recombinant factor VIII (rFVIII), recombinant factor VIII Fc fusion protein (rFVIIIFc), and gene therapy. The reporting quality of the studies is generally good with an average score of 79.64% (22.3/28) based on the CHEERS 2022 checklist. Current studies revealed that emicizumab prophylaxis was more cost-effective compared to BPAs in people with hemophilia A with inhibitors. However, its cost-effectiveness compared to rFVIII was unclear and varied across different countries. In addition, rFVIIIFc and valoctocogene roxaparvovec were more cost-effective than emicizumab for people with HA without inhibitors. Conclusion: Emicizumab prophylaxis was more cost-effective compared to BPAs in people with hemophilia A with inhibitors. Cost-effectiveness analyses with more accurate cost estimations of different countries should provide more convincing evidence for clinical decision-making. Systematic review registration: Identifier CRD 42023429349, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42023429349.
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.