ArticleBlood vessels, thrombosis & hemostasis2026
Cost-effectiveness analysis of emicizumab use in hospitalized older individuals with acquired hemophilia A.
Article in Blood vessels, thrombosis & hemostasis, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
Acquired hemophilia A (AHA) is a rare, autoimmune disease that leads to a severe bleeding diathesis. The efficacy of emicizumab use in the inpatient management of AHA has been recognized, but widespread inpatient use remains limited due to its high cost. To evaluate cost-effectiveness of up-front emicizumab use in the inpatient management of AHA in the United States, we built a Markov simulation to examine the cost-effectiveness of administering emicizumab with concurrent recombinant activated factor VII (rFVIIa) vs rFVIIa alone (standard of care [SOC]) in older individuals newly diagnosed with AHA and hospitalized for bleeding control. Model outcomes included direct costs (medication use and hospital stay) and utilities associated with bleeding and nonbleeding health states (measured using quality-adjusted life days [QALDs]). The analysis was conducted over a 20-day hospitalization horizon with a health system perspective. We conducted deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA), capturing uncertainty across parameters over 10 000 Monte Carlo simulations. The addition of up-front emicizumab to SOC vs SOC alone yielded lower total direct cost ($248 934 vs $569 038) and more QALDs (15.92 vs 14.72). The addition of up-front emicizumab to SOC was the dominant strategy. The duration of daily rFVIIa use had the largest impact on the incremental net monetary benefit. In a PSA, emicizumab was cost-effective in 100% of simulations. The addition of up-front emicizumab to SOC is less costly and more effective, even at current emicizumab pricing. Our results provide strong economic and clinical justification to consider up-front emicizumab use in AHA management.
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.