Cell and gene therapy accessibility.

Patients with devastating illnesses demonstrate incredible courage in battling their disease. Innovative cell and gene therapies (CGTs), built on decades of research, are changing the lives of those who suffer from conditions ranging from cancer to sickle cell disease to neurologic diseases. Although hailed for their promise and recognized for benefits that will exceed the costs, the high prices of CGTs ($300 thousand to $4 million per dose) leave these therapies out of reach for many. This accessibility problem will only be solved if academia, industry, investors, funders, regulators, and advocacy groups work together to put CGT breakthroughs in the hands of all who stand to benefit.

Budget Impact of Disease-Modifying Treatments and a CRISPR Gene-Edited Therapy for Sickle Cell Disease.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Treatment of sickle cell disease (SCD) has traditionally focused on symptomatic and preventative care. Recent advances in novel therapeutic developments, likely to be orphan-designated, are anticipated to carry a substantial price tag. This study assesses the potential budget impact of adopting disease-modifying treatments, crizanlizumab and voxelotor, and pioneering CRISPR gene-edited therapy, CTX001, in the Belgian healthcare system. METHODS: The perspective of the Belgian healthcare payer (RIZIV-INAMI including patient copayments), a 5-year horizon with a 2-10% uptake of disease-modifying interventions, and a 2% uptake of CTX001 were considered. Data, encompassing target population, current (chronic and acute management, curative hematopoietic stem cell transplantation) and new (crizanlizumab, voxelotor, and CTX001) interventions, clinical effectiveness, adverse events, healthcare resource utilization, and associated costs, were gathered through a comprehensive literature review (first phase) and two Delphi panels involving hematologists (second phase). The cost difference between a "world with and without crizanlizumab, voxelotor, and CTX001" was calculated to obtain the budget impact. Three scenario analyses were conducted: a 5-13% and 4% uptake analysis, a 10-18% and 8% uptake analysis, respectively for disease-modifying treatments (crizanlizumab and voxelotor) and CTX001, and a 0% crizanlizumab uptake and managed entry agreements analysis . A ± 20% univariate sensitivity analysis was performed to test the robustness of the analysis. RESULTS: The total five-year cumulative budget impact was estimated at €30,024,968, with 91% attributed to drug acquisition costs. The largest budget impact share was for CTX001 (€25,575,150), while crizanlizumab (€2,301,095) and voxelotor (€2,148,723) was relatively small. In scenarios one and three, a two-fold increase of the cumulative budget impact to €60,731,772 and a four-fold increase to €120,846,256 from the base case was observed. In scenario three, this budget impact decreased by 63% to €11,212,766. Patient population size, number of treated patients, and drug costs influenced the analysis the most, while discontinuation, acute crisis, and adverse event rates had comparatively minimal impact. CONCLUSIONS: Belgian decision-makers may consider alternative financing models, such as outcome-based risk-sharing agreements or annuities, to ensure sustainable coverage of these treatments. This study adheres to recommended practices for assessing budget impact of orphan drugs, distinguishing it from earlier studies with potentially weaker methodologies.

The impact of capping health system cost savings on the projected cost-effectiveness of etranacogene dezaparvovec compared with factor IX prophylaxis for the treatment of hemophilia B.

This viewpoint discusses cost-effectiveness estimates for EtranaDez, a gene therapy for hemophilia B, using the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review's (ICER) framework for single and short-term therapies (SSTs). EtranaDez offers long-term benefits from a single administration, in contrast to the high costs and frequent dosing required by current factor IX prophylaxis. However, the projected gains in health from EtranaDez are small relative to the cost implications of the therapy, and consequently, how the cost offsets associated with EtranaDez are counted has a substantial impact on assessing its cost-effectiveness. Strategies for assessing cost offsets used in the ICER SST framework include a 50/50 cost-sharing model between the health care system and the manufacturer and a cap of $150,000 annually on health care cost offsets. Results from the standard full cost-offset analysis as reported by ICER depicted EtranaDez as a dominant therapy with substantial cost savings compared with factor IX prophylaxis. However, while considering the ICER SST framework, particularly the $150,000 annual cap scenario, the cost-effectiveness was significantly reduced. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio varied notably between these scenarios, challenging the conventional perception of value of gene therapy in health care. These cost-sharing scenarios highlight the potential of the ICER SST framework to help curtail inefficient health care spending. In cases in which the cost of existing treatment is exceedingly high, the application of such frameworks would improve efficiency in resource allocation, fostering a balance between incentives for innovation and economic sustainability in managed care systems.

Optimizing the management of inherited blood disorders in a changing market: Findings from the AMCP Market Insights Program.

In this market insights program, AMCP brought together a panel of experts representing various stakeholders: national and regional health plans, integrated health care systems, employer benefits groups, clinical experts, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and patient advocacy organizations. The objectives were to gain insights into the current and evolving treatments in hemophilia, sickle cell disease, and ß-thalassemia; measure the effects of recently approved therapies on clinicians, payers, and patients; recognize emerging trends within the stop-loss market; address potential issues and obstacles related to monitoring and reporting outcomes; and identify concerns associated with both existing and emerging contracting and reimbursement models. This article aims to summarize expert perspectives on health care system challenges and strategies concerning the management of inherited blood disorders and to advance managed care professionals' understanding of their role in supporting care for these patients. The experts emphasized that when shaping coverage policies, a patient-centered approach is crucial, focusing on preserving organ function to maintain eligibility for future gene therapies among individuals with inherited blood disorders. These strategies, including benefit design modifications, specialized provider networks, and centralized mechanisms like registries, are vital for evaluating effectiveness, facilitating decision-making, and managing costs and risks associated with new and emerging treatment options for inherited blood disorders.

Challenges for gene therapy in the financial sustainability of health systems: a scoping review.

AIM: To review the available evidence about the strategies implemented or proposed for coverage or reimbursement for currently approved gene therapies. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted to analyze the evidence published during the years 2016 to 2023. The main search criteria were coverage or reimbursement of gene therapy by healthcare systems. The eligible articles were those that described or proposed a financing model used to provide coverage in the various systems around the world. RESULTS: The study identified 279 publications, and after removing duplicates and screening for eligibility, 10 were included in the study. The results show that various financing models have been proposed, including subscription-based payment models, outcome-based payment models, and amortization strategies. However, several barriers to implementing these models were identified, such as deficiencies in informatics systems for data collection, changes in laws or regulations, the lack of accessible clinical endpoints and administrative costs. CONCLUSION: This scoping review provides an overview of financing strategies for gene therapies. Gene therapies can cure rare or previously intractable diseases, but their high cost can make access difficult. Publishing experiences with these models can help evaluate their use and gather more evidence for their effectiveness.

Illustrating the Financial Consequences of Outcome-Based Payment Models From a Payers Perspective: The Case of Autologous Gene Therapy Atidarsagene Autotemcel (Libmeldy®).

OBJECTIVES: To illustrate the financial consequences of implementing different managed entry agreements (managed entry agreements for the Dutch healthcare system for autologous gene therapy atidarsagene autotemcel [Libmeldy]), while also providing a first systematic guidance on how to construct managed entry agreements to aid future reimbursement decision making and create patient access to high-cost, one-off potentially curative therapies. METHODS: Three payment models were compared: (1) an arbitrary 60% price discount, (2) an outcome-based spread payment with discounts, and (3) an outcome-based spread payment linked to a willingness to pay model with discounts. Financial consequences were estimated for full responders (A), patients responding according to the predicted clinical pathway presented in health technology assessment reports (B), and unstable responders (C). The associated costs for an average patient during the time frame of the payment agreement, the total budget impact, and associated benefits expressed in quality-adjusted life-years of the patient population were calculated. RESULTS: When patients responded according to the predicted clinical pathway presented in health technology assessment reports (scenario B), implementing outcome-based reimbursement models (models 2 and 3) had lower associated budget impacts while gaining similar benefits compared with the discount (scenario 1, €8.9 million to €6.6 million vs €9.2 million). In the case of unstable responders (scenario C), costs for payers are lower in the outcome-based scenarios (€4.1 million and €3.0 million, scenario 2C and 3C, respectively) compared with implementing the discount (€9.2 million, scenario 1C). CONCLUSIONS: Outcome-based models can mitigate the financial risk of reimbursing atidarsagene autotemcel. This can be considerably beneficial over simple discounts when clinical performance was similar to or worse than predicted.

An Early Cost-Utility Model of mRNA-Based Therapies for the Treatment of Methylmalonic and Propionic Acidemia in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Novel messenger RNA (mRNA)-based therapies, currently in development, are emerging as a promising potential treatment modality for a broad range of life-threatening and life-limiting inherited liver diseases, including methylmalonic acidemia (MMA) and propionic acidemia (PA). However, owing in part to their complexity, they are likely to come at considerable financial cost to healthcare systems. The objective of this research was to synthesize available evidence on the costs and clinical consequences associated with MMA and PA for the purpose of exploratory economic evaluation of novel mRNA-based therapies using an early cost-utility model from the United Kingdom payer perspective. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed to simulate the costs and outcomes associated with novel mRNA therapies, compared with a combination of dietary management and organ transplantation (standard of care) among hypothetical cohorts of new-born patients with MMA and PA. Key model drivers were identified, and a price threshold analysis was performed to estimate value-based price ranges for future mRNA therapies given willingness-to-pay thresholds for orphan diseases. RESULTS: mRNA therapy was associated with an additional 5.7 and 1.3 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained per patient lifetime among patients with MMA and PA, respectively. Key drivers of cost-effectiveness were relative improvement in utility among patients who receive mRNA-based therapy and transplantation, and the cost of mRNA therapy. Assuming a willingness to pay range of £100,000-£300,000 per QALY gained, the model demonstrated mRNA therapy to be cost-effective in MMA and PA at an annual treatment cost of £70,452-£94,575 and £31,313-£36,695, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the lack of a strong evidence base in MMA and PA, this model provides a useful tool to estimate the cost-effectiveness, and inform value-based pricing, of new mRNA-based therapies. Our analyses also identified areas for research that will have the greatest value in reducing uncertainty in future health economic evaluations of such treatments.

Analysis of long-term clinical and cost impact of etranacogene dezaparvovec for the treatment of hemophilia B population in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Etranacogene dezaparvovec (EDZ), Hemgenix, is a gene therapy recently approved for people with hemophilia B (PwHB). OBJECTIVE: To estimate long-term clinical impact and cost of EDZ in the United States (US). METHODS: A decision-analytic model was developed to evaluate the long-term impact of introducing EDZ for PwHB over a 20-year time horizon. Factor IX (FIX) prophylaxis comparator was a weighted average of different FIX prophylaxis regimens based on US market share data. We compared a scenario in which EDZ is introduced in the US versus a scenario without EDZ. Clinical inputs (annualized FIX-treated bleed rate; adverse event rates) were obtained from HOPE-B phase 3 trial. EDZ durability input was sourced from an analysis predicting long-term FIX activity with EDZ. EDZ one-time price was assumed at $3.5 million. Other medical costs, including FIX prophylaxis, disease monitoring, bleed management, and adverse events were from literature. The model estimated annual and cumulative costs, treated bleeds, and joint procedures over 20 years from EDZ introduction. RESULTS: Approximately 596 PwHB were eligible for EDZ. EDZ uptake was estimated to avert 11,282 bleeds and 64 joint procedures over 20 years. Although adopting EDZ resulted in an annual excess cost over years 1-5 (mean: $53 million annually, total $265 million), annual cost savings were achieved beginning in year 6 (mean: $172 million annually; total $2.58 billion in years 6-20). The total cumulative 20-year cost savings was $2.32 billion, with cumulative cost savings beginning in year 8. CONCLUSION: Introducing EDZ to treat PwHB is expected to result in cost savings and patient benefit over 20 years. Initiating PwHB on EDZ sooner can produce greater and earlier savings and additional bleeds avoided. These results may be a conservative estimate of the full value of EDZ, as PwHB would continue to accrue savings beyond 20 years.

This analysis assessed the long-term clinical and financial impact of introducing EDZ in the United States of America for people with severe or moderately severe hemophilia B. A decision-analytic model was developed comparing a scenario with EDZ and one without EDZ over 20 years. Introducing EDZ would avert 11,292 bleeds and 64 joint procedures over 20 years and would achieve cumulative cost savings in year 8, with a total cumulative 20-year cost saving of $2.32 billion.

A systematic review on the appropriate discounting rates for the economic evaluation of gene therapies: whether a specific approach is justified to tackle the challenges?

OBJECTIVES: Discounting the cost and effect for health intervention is a controversial topic over the last two decades. In particular, the cost-effectiveness of gene therapies is especially sensitive to the discount rate because of the substantial delay between the upfront cost incurred and long-lasing clinical benefits received. This study aims to investigate the influence of employing alternative discount rates on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of gene therapies. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted to include health economic evaluations of gene therapies that were published until April 2023. RESULTS: Sensitivity or scenario analysis indicated that discount rate represented one of the most influential factors for the ICERs of gene therapies. Discount rate for cost and benefit was positively correlated with the cost-effectiveness of gene therapies, that is, a lower discount rate significantly improves the ICERs. The alternative discount rate employed in some cases could be powerful to alter the conclusion on whether gene therapies are cost-effective and acceptable for reimbursement. CONCLUSIONS: Although discount rate will have substantial influence on the ICERs of gene therapies, there lacks solid evidence to justify a different discounting rule for gene therapies. However, it is proposed that the discount rate in the reference case should be updated to reflect the real-time preference, which in turn will affect the ICERs and reimbursement of gene therapies more profoundly than conventional therapies.

Assessing health plan payer's budget impact of etranacogene dezaparvovec for the treatment of hemophilia B in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Etranacogene dezaparvovec is a recently approved gene therapy for people with hemophilia B (PwHB). Current standard of care is prophylaxis with factor IX (FIX) to prevent bleeding. Etranacogene dezaparvovec increases blood FIX levels such that FIX prophylaxis could be eliminated. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the budgetary impact of etranacogene dezaparvovec adoption and utilization in a commercial health plan of the United States. METHODS: A budget impact model was developed to evaluate the introduction of etranacogene dezaparvovec to treat severe or moderately severe hemophilia B. The model considered a hypothetical 1-million-member plan over a 5-year horizon. FIX therapy prophylaxis use was estimated based on a weighted average of relevant brands using US market share data. A scenario of etranacogene dezaparvovec adoption/utilization was compared with one without etranacogene dezaparvovec utilization. Two etranacogene dezaparvovec uptake (market share growth) analyses were performed: one with gradual uptake and alternatively assuming all eligible PwHB received etranacogene dezaparvovec in year 1. The one-time cost of etranacogene dezaparvovec was assumed to be $3.5 million. Other costs (FIX prophylaxis, disease monitoring, bleed management, and adverse events) were estimated from published literature. All costs were in 2022 US dollars. Bleed and adverse event rates were sourced from the HOPE-B trial comparing etranacogene dezaparvovec to previous FIX therapy prophylaxis. The model estimated annual and per-member per-month costs over 5 years. Secondary analyses were performed considering a 10-year horizon. RESULTS: In the 1-million-member health plan, an estimated 1.8 PwHB were eligible for treatment with etranacogene dezaparvovec. Gradual uptake of etranacogene dezaparvovec resulted in cumulative 5-year budget impact of $848,509 compared with a scenario without etranacogene dezaparvovec. In years 1-5, the incremental annual and per-member per-month costs ranged from $79,824 to $271,435 and from $0.007 to $0.023, respectively. In the alternative uptake analysis, etranacogene dezaparvovec became cost saving annually beginning in year 2 and cumulatively beginning in year 5, for a 5-year savings of $754,844. Secondary analyses over 10 years found both uptake analyses cost saving. Other scenarios considered did not affect results substantially. CONCLUSIONS: Introducing etranacogene dezaparvovec as treatment for PwHB would have a modest budget increase within 5 years after treatment but may become cost saving if all eligible PwHB were treated in year 1. Initiating PwHB on etranacogene dezaparvovec sooner may produce greater overall savings and earlier annual savings. Etranacogene dezaparvovec is a treatment option that may provide overall cost savings for US commercial health plans, which would increase as the plan size increases.

Towards ethical drug pricing: the European Orphan Genomic Therapies Fund.

An increasing number of novel genomic therapies are expected to become available for patients with rare or ultra-rare diseases. However, the primary obstacle to equal patient access to these orphan genomic therapies are currently very high prices charged by manufacturers in the context of limited healthcare budgets. Taking into account ethical pricing theories, the paper proposes the implementation of a pricing infrastructure covering all European member states, which has the potential to promote distributive justice while maintaining the attractiveness of genomic therapy development.

Cost-Effectiveness of Lovotibeglogene Autotemcel (Lovo-Cel) Gene Therapy for Patients with Sickle Cell Disease and Recurrent Vaso-Occlusive Events in the United States.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Gene therapies for sickle cell disease (SCD) may offer meaningful benefits for patients and society. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of lovotibeglogene autotemcel (lovo-cel), a one-time gene therapy administered via autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, compared with common care for patients in the United States (US) with SCD aged ≥ 12 years with ≥ 4 vaso-occlusive events (VOEs) in the past 24 months. METHODS: We developed a patient-level simulation model accounting for lovo-cel and SCD-related events, complications, and mortality over a lifetime time horizon. The pivotal phase 1/2 HGB-206 clinical trial (NCT02140554) served as the basis for lovo-cel efficacy and safety. Cost, quality-of-life, and other clinical data were sourced from HGB-206 data and the literature. Analyses were conducted from US societal and third-party payer perspectives. Uncertainty was assessed through probabilistic sensitivity analysis and extensive scenario analyses. RESULTS: Patients treated with lovo-cel were predicted to survive 23.84 years longer on average (standard deviation [SD], 12.80) versus common care (life expectancy, 62.24 versus 38.40 years), with associated discounted patient quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gains of 10.20 (SD, 4.10) and direct costs avoided of $1,329,201 (SD, $1,346,446) per patient. Predicted societal benefits included discounted caregiver QALY losses avoided of 1.19 (SD, 1.38) and indirect costs avoided of $540,416 (SD, $262,353) per patient. Including lovo-cel costs ($3,282,009 [SD, $29,690] per patient) resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $191,519 and $124,051 per QALY gained from third-party payer and societal perspectives, respectively. In scenario analyses, the predicted cost-effectiveness of lovo-cel also was sensitive to baseline age and VOE frequency and to the proportion of patients achieving and maintaining complete resolution of VOEs. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis of lovo-cel gene therapy compared with common care for patients in the US with SCD with recurrent VOEs estimated meaningful improvements in survival, quality of life, and other clinical outcomes accompanied by increased overall costs for the health care system and for broader society. The predicted economic value of lovo-cel gene therapy was influenced by uncertainty in long-term clinical effects and by positive spillover effects on patient productivity and caregiver burden.

Challenges and opportunities for access to Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products in Brazil.

BACKGROUND AIMS: The marketing authorization of Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs) in Brazil is recent. The features of these therapies impose specialized regulatory action and are consequently challenging for developers. The goal of this study was to identify the industry's experience in clinical development, marketing authorization and access to ATMPs through the Unified Health System (SUS, acronym in Portuguese), from a regulatory perspective. METHODS: A survey containing structured questions was conducted among research participants who work at companies that commercialize ATMPs. A descriptive analysis was performed. RESULTS: We invited 15 foreign pharmaceutical companies, of which 10 agreed to participate. Overall, participants assessed that Brazil has a well-established regulatory system, especially the sanitary registration by the National Health Surveillance Agency (Anvisa), which ensures the quality, safety, and efficacy of the products. The Agency's good interaction with the regulated sector, the harmonization of sanitary and ethical assessment systems with other countries, and the analysis time in the biosafety assessment of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) stand out as positive in industry's evaluation. On the other hand, it is important to advance the pricing regulation for these products since Brazilian regulations do not establish specific criteria for ATMP. One of the biggest challenges is the difficulty for the SUS in reimbursing these very high-cost therapies, especially using current Health Technology Assessment (HTA) methods. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the increasing number of approvals of cell and gene therapies in Brazil in the coming years, a close dialogue between the industry and the public sector is recommended to advance regulatory improvements (pricing and HTA). Additionally, the construction of policies to promote the national Health Economic-Industrial Complex, based on a mission-oriented vision that encourages innovative models of financing, especially those that consider risk-sharing and co-financing technologies, will help provide the population with universal, equitable and sustainable access to ATMP in the SUS.

A Review of the Cost-Effectiveness Evidence for FDA-Approved Cell and Gene Therapies.

Cell and gene therapy (CGT) innovations have provided several significant breakthroughs in recent years. However, CGTs often come with a high upfront cost, raising questions about patient access, affordability, and long-term value. This study reviewed cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) studies that have attempted to assess the long-term value of Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved CGTs. Two reviewers independently searched the Tufts Medical Center CEA Registry to identify all studies for FDA-approved CGTs, per January 2023. A data extraction template was used to summarize the evidence in terms of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio expressed as the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and essential modeling assumptions, combined with a template to extract the adherence to the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. The review identified 26 CEA studies for seven CGTs. Around half of the base-case cost-effectiveness results indicated that the cost per QALY was below $100,000-$150,000, often used as a threshold for reasonable cost-effectiveness in the United States. However, the results varied substantially across studies for the same treatment, ranging from being considered very cost-effective to far from cost-effective. Most models were based on data from single-arm trials with relatively short follow-ups, and different long-term extrapolations between studies caused large differences in the modeled cost-effectiveness results. In sum, this review showed that, despite the high upfront costs, many CGTs have cost-effectiveness evidence that can support long-term value. Nonetheless, substantial uncertainty regarding long-term value exists because so much of the modeling results are driven by uncertain extrapolations beyond the clinical trial data.