Severe, Refractory Primary Warm Autoimmune Hemolytic Anemia Requiring 90 Erythrocyte Transfusions.

A previously healthy 60-year-old man presented to the hospital with a hemoglobin of 3.5 g/dL. He was diagnosed with severe warm autoimmune hemolytic anemia (wAIHA) with reticulocytopenia on hospital day 1 that was not responsive to steroids, immune globulin, and rituximab. Over a 42-day hospital stay, the patient remained continuously transfusion-dependent with a ninety red cell unit requirement for his refractory disease. He was trialed on therapeutic plasma exchange before ultimately undergoing inpatient splenectomy that led to a response within hours. He remains in complete remission at six months of follow-up.

Cost-effectiveness of sutimlimab in cold agglutinin disease.

Primary cold agglutinin disease (CAD) is a rare autoimmune hemolytic anemia caused by cold-reactive antibodies that bind to red blood cells and lead to complement-mediated hemolysis. Patients with primary CAD experience the burden of increased health resource utilization and reduced quality of life. The standard-of-care (SOC) in patients with primary CAD has included cold avoidance, transfusion support, and chemoimmunotherapy. The use of sutimlimab, a humanized monoclonal antibody that selectively inhibits C1-mediated hemolysis, was shown to reduce transfusion-dependence and improve quality of life across two pivotal phase 3 studies, further supported by 2-year extension data. Using data from the transfusion-dependent patient population that led to sutimlimab's initial FDA approval, we performed the first-ever cost-effectiveness analysis in primary CAD. The projected incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in our Markov model was $2 340 000/QALY, significantly above an upper-end conventional US willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000/QALY. These results are consistent across scenarios of higher body weight and a pan-refractory SOC patient phenotype (i.e., treated sequentially with bendamustine-rituximab, bortezomib, ibrutinib, and eculizumab). No parameter variations in deterministic sensitivity analyses changed our conclusion. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, SOC was favored over sutimlimab in 100% of 10 000 iterations. Exploratory threshold analyses showed that significant price reduction (>80%) or time-limited treatment (<18 months) followed by lifelong clinical remission off sutimlimab would allow sutimlimab to become cost-effective. The impact of sutimlimab on health system costs with longer term follow-up data merits future study and consideration through a distributional cost-effectiveness framework.

Cost-effectiveness of prophylaxis with recombinant versus plasma-derived VWF in severe von Willebrand disease in the US.

We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of prophylaxis with rVWF versus with pdVWF for patients with severe VWD. We found that rVWF is a cost-saving factor replacement compared to pdVWF across all willingness-to-pay thresholds in the United States.

Cost-effectiveness of adding quizartinib to induction chemotherapy for patients with FLT3-mutant acute myeloid leukemia.

The FLT3 inhibitor quizartinib has been shown to improve overall survival when added to intensive induction chemotherapy ("7 + 3") in patients 18-75 years old with newly diagnosed AML harboring a FLT3-ITD mutation. However, the health economic implications of this approval are unknown. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of quizartinib using a partitioned survival analysis model. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. In the base case scenario, the addition of quizartinib to 7 + 3 resulted in incremental costs of $289,932 compared with 7 + 3 alone. With an incremental gain of 0.84 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) with quizartinib + 7 + 3 induction vs. 7 + 3 alone, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the addition of quizartinib to standard 7 + 3 was $344,039/QALY. Only an 87% reduction in the average wholesale price of quizartinib or omitting quizartinib continuation therapy after completion of consolidation therapy and allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant would make quizartinib a cost-effective option.

Cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab therapy in the care of patients with hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia.

No FDA or EMA approved therapies exist for bleeding due to hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia (HHT), the second-most-common inherited bleeding disorder worldwide. The current standard-of-care (SOC) includes iron and red cell supplementation, alongside the necessary hemostatic procedures, none of which target underlying disease pathogenesis. Recent evidence has demonstrated that bleeding pathophysiology is amenable to systemic antiangiogenic therapy with the anti-VEGF bevacizumab. Despite its high cost, the addition of longitudinal bevacizumab to the current SOC may reduce overall healthcare resource utilization and improve patient quality-of-life. We conducted the first cost-effectiveness analysis of IV bevacizumab in patients with HHT with the moderate-to-severe phenotype, comparing 1) bevacizumab added to SOC versus 2) SOC alone. The primary outcome was the incremental net monetary benefit (iNMB) reported over a lifetime time horizon and across accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds, in USD per quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY). Bevacizumab therapy accrued 9.3 QALYS while generating $428,000 in costs, compared to 8.3 QALYs and $699,000 in costs accrued in the SOC strategy. The iNMB of bevacizumab therapy versus the standard of care was $433,000. No parameter variation and no scenario analysis, including choice of iron supplementation product, changed the outcome of bevacizumab being a cost-saving strategy. Bevacizumab therapy also saved patients an average of 133 hours spent receiving HHT-specific care per year of life. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, bevacizumab was favored in 100% of all 10,000 Monte Carlo iterations across base-case and all scenario analyses. Bevacizumab should be considered for more favorable formulary placement in the care of patients with moderate-to-severe HHT.

Cost-effectiveness of rapid vs in-house vs send-out ADAMTS13 testing for immune thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura.

ABSTRACT: While awaiting confirmatory results, empiric therapy for patients suspected to have immune thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (iTTP) provides benefits and also accrues risks and costs. Rapid assays for ADAMTS13 may be able to avoid the cost and risk exposure associated with empiric treatment. We conducted, to our knowledge, the first cost-effectiveness evaluation of testing strategies with rapid vs traditional ADAMTS13 assays in patients with intermediate- to high-risk PLASMIC scores, with and without caplacizumab use. We built a Markov cohort simulation with 4 clinical base-case analyses: (1) intermediate-risk PLASMIC score with caplacizumab; (2) intermediate-risk PLASMIC score without caplacizumab; (3) high-risk PLASMIC score with caplacizumab; and (4) high-risk PLASMIC score without caplacizumab. Each of these evaluated 3 testing strategies: (1) rapid assay (<1-hour turnaround); (2) in-house fluorescence resonance energy transfer (FRET)-based assay (24-hour turnaround); and (3) send-out FRET-based assay (72-hour turnaround). The primary outcome was the incremental net monetary benefit reported over a 3-day time horizon and across accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds in US dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). While accruing the same amount of QALYs, the rapid assay strategy saved up to $46 820 (95% CI, $41 961-$52 486) per patient tested. No parameter variation changed the outcome. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, the rapid assay strategy was favored in 100% (3 base cases and scenario analyses) and 99% (1 base-case and scenario analysis) across 100 000 Monte Carlo iterations within each. Rapid ADAMTS13 testing for patients with intermediate- or high-risk PLASMIC scores yields significant per patient cost savings, achieved by reducing the costs associated with unnecessary therapeutic plasma exchange and caplacizumab therapy in patients without iTTP.

Decreasing alloimmunization-specific mortality in sickle cell disease in the United States: Cost-effectiveness of a shared transfusion resource.

Red blood cell alloimmunization and consequent delayed hemolytic transfusion reaction (DHTR) incidence and mortality in patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) are high. A shared transfusion resource has decreased both in other countries, while in the United States cost concerns persist. We conducted a Markov cohort simulation of a birth cohort of alloimmunized patients with SCD to estimate lifetime DHTR incidence, DHTR-specific mortality, quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE), and costs with the implementation of a shared transfusion resource to identify antibody history versus without (i.e., status quo). We conducted our analysis using a lifetime analytic time horizon and from a United States health system perspective. Implementation of shared transfusion resource projects to decrease cumulative DHTR-specific mortality by 26% for alloimmunized patients with SCD in the United States, relative to the status quo. For an average patient population of 32 000, this intervention would generate a discounted increment of 4000 QALYs at an incremental discounted cost of $0.3 billion, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $75 600/QALY [95% credible interval $70 200-81 400/QALY]. The results are most sensitive to the baseline lifetime medical expenditure of patients with SCD. Alloantibody data exchange is cost-effective in 100% of 10 000 Monte Carlo simulations. The resource would theoretically need a minimum patient population of 1819 patients or cost no more than $5.29 million annually to be cost-effective. By reducing DHTR-specific mortality, a shared transfusion resource in the United States projects to be a life-saving and cost-effective intervention for patients with SCD in the United States.

Napkin math can change the world.

Mathematical models hold the key to equitable patient care.

Global Health Resource Utilization and Cost-Effectiveness of Therapeutics and Diagnostics in Immune Thrombotic Thrombocytopenic Purpura (TTP).

In this review, we examine the current landscape of health resource utilization and cost-effectiveness data in the care of patient populations with immune thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura. We focus on the therapeutic (therapeutic plasma exchange, glucocorticoids, rituximab, caplacizumab) and diagnostic (ADAMTS13 assay) health technologies employed in the care of patients with this rare disease. Health resource utilization and cost-effectiveness data are limited to the high-income country context. Measurement of TTP-specific utility weights in the high-income country context and collection of health resource utilization data in the low- and middle-income country settings would enable an evaluation of country-specific quality-adjusted life expectancy and cost-effectiveness of these therapeutic and diagnostic health technologies. This quantification of value is one way to mitigate cost concerns where they exist.

Cost-effectiveness of prophylactic emicizumab versus prophylactic recombinant factor VIII in patients with moderate or mild hemophilia A without inhibitors in the United States.

Prophylactic emicizumab is cost-ineffective in adults with moderate or mild hemophilia A without inhibitors at current pricing. The price of prophylactic emicizumab would need to decrease by >35% to become cost-effective in this patient population.

Distributional Cost-Effectiveness of Equity-Enhancing Gene Therapy in Sickle Cell Disease in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Gene therapy is a potential cure for sickle cell disease (SCD). Conventional cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) does not capture the effects of treatments on disparities in SCD, but distributional CEA (DCEA) uses equity weights to incorporate these considerations. OBJECTIVE: To compare gene therapy versus standard of care (SOC) in patients with SCD by using conventional CEA and DCEA. DESIGN: Markov model. DATA SOURCES: Claims data and other published sources. TARGET POPULATION: Birth cohort of patients with SCD. TIME HORIZON: Lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: U.S. health system. INTERVENTION: Gene therapy at age 12 years versus SOC. OUTCOME MEASURES: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) (in dollars per quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs] gained) and threshold inequality aversion parameter (equity weight). RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: Gene therapy versus SOC for females yielded 25.5 versus 15.7 (males: 24.4 vs. 15.5) discounted lifetime QALYs at costs of $2.8 million and $1.0 million (males: $2.8 million and $1.2 million), respectively, with an ICER of $176 000 per QALY (full SCD population). The inequality aversion parameter would need to be 0.90 for the full SCD population for gene therapy to be preferred per DCEA standards. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: SOC was favored in 100.0% (females) and 87.1% (males) of 10 000 probabilistic iterations at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALY. Gene therapy would need to cost less than $1.79 million to meet conventional CEA standards. LIMITATION: Benchmark equity weights (as opposed to SCD-specific weights) were used to interpret DCEA results. CONCLUSION: Gene therapy is cost-ineffective per conventional CEA standards but can be an equitable therapeutic strategy for persons living with SCD in the United States per DCEA standards. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Yale Bernard G. Forget Scholars Program and Bunker Endowment.

Cost-effectiveness of azacitidine and ivosidenib in newly diagnosed older, intensive chemotherapy-ineligible patients with IDH1-mutant acute myeloid leukemia.

Ivosidenib + azacitidine (IVO/AZA) is approved in the United States for newly diagnosed, older or intensive chemotherapy-ineligible patients with IDH1-mutated acute myeloid leukemia. We created a partitioned survival analysis model to evaluate the health economic implications of this approval. Model outputs were used to calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of IVO/AZA versus AZA. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. In the base case scenario, IVO/AZA and AZA resulted in life-time costs of $403,062 and $161,887, respectively. With an incremental gain of 0.95 QALYs, the ICER of IVO/AZA was $252,782/QALY. In sensitivity analyses, only a reduction in the price of IVO by 59.3% lowered the ICER to below $150,000/QALY and 99.95% of model calculations yielded ICERs of >$150,000/QALY. In a model in which all patients received IVO monotherapy after progression on AZA monotherapy, the ICER was $155,453/QALY and various model inputs that would make IVO/AZA cost-effective were identified.

Cost-effectiveness of second-line therapies in adults with chronic immune thrombocytopenia.

Major options for second-line therapy in adults with chronic immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) include splenectomy, rituximab, and thrombopoietin receptor agonists (TRAs). The American Society of Hematology guidelines recommend rituximab over splenectomy, TRAs over rituximab, and splenectomy or TRAs while noting a lack of evidence on the cost-effectiveness of these therapies. Using prospective, observational, and meta-analytic data, we performed the first cost-effectiveness analysis of second-line therapies in chronic ITP, from the perspective of the U.S. health system. Over a 20-year time-horizon, our six-strategy Markov model shows that a strategy incorporating early splenectomy, an approach at odds with current guidelines and clinical practice, is the cost-effective strategy. All four strategies utilizing TRAs in the first or second position cost over $1 million per quality-adjusted life-year, as compared to strategies involving early use of splenectomy and rituximab. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, early use of splenectomy and rituximab in either order was favored in 100% of 10 000 iterations. The annual cost of TRAs would have to decrease over 80% to begin to become cost-effective in any early TRA strategy. Our data indicate that effectiveness of early TRA and late TRA strategies is similar with the cost significantly greater with early TRA strategies. Contrary to current practice trends and guidelines, early use of splenectomy and rituximab, rather than TRAs, constitutes cost-effective treatment in adults with chronic ITP.

Thrombosis questions from the inpatient wards.

The multifaceted pathophysiologic processes that comprise thrombosis and thromboembolic diseases take on a particular urgency in the hospitalized setting. In this review, we explore 3 cases of thrombosis from the inpatient wards: purpura fulminans, cancer-associated thrombosis with thrombocytopenia, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and the use of dose-escalated anticoagulation therapy and antiplatelet agents. We discuss the evaluation and management of purpura fulminans and the roles of plasma transfusion, protein C and antithrombin replacement, and anticoagulation in treating this disease. We present a framework for evaluating the etiologies of thrombocytopenia in cancer and review 2 strategies for anticoagulation management in patients with cancer-associated thrombosis and thrombocytopenia, including recent prospective data supporting the use of dose-modified anticoagulation based on platelet count. Last, we dissect the major clinical trials of therapeutic- and intermediate-dose anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, reviewing key recommendations from consensus guidelines while highlighting ways in which institutional and patient-tailored practices regarding antithrombotic therapies in COVID-19 may differ. Together, the cases highlight the diverse and dramatic presentations of macro- and microvascular thrombosis as encountered on the inpatient wards.

Association of iron infusion reactions with ABO blood type.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine risk factors for iv iron infusion-related reactions (IRR), and identify strategies for iron repletion after IRR. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients treated in the classical hematology clinic at Yale Cancer Center (n = 330 consecutive patients) from 2016 to 2021, who received iv ferumoxytol (60.3%), iron sucrose (14.8%), or iron dextran (10.9%). RESULTS: The iv iron IRR was noted in 58 (17.6%) patients, 62.1% of whom had previously tolerated iv iron. The severity of IRR was mild in 22, moderate in 23, and severe in 11 patients. Most (72.4%) patients who experienced IRR tolerated a subsequent iv iron infusion. On multivariable analysis, a history of non-medication allergies was associated with greater odds of IRR (odds ratio [OR] 2.12, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.16-3.87, p = .01). No patients with type AB blood, and few with type A blood (n = 6), had IRR; compared to type A or AB together, patients with type B (OR 5.00, 95% CI: 1.56-16.06, p = .007) or type O (OR 3.71, 95% CI: 1.44-9.55, p = .007) blood had greater odds of IRR. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights a possible association of blood type with iv iron IRR; prospective studies with larger patient numbers are warranted to explore this association.