Cost-Effectiveness of Recombinant Factor IX Fc Prophylaxis and Recombinant Factor IX On-Demand Treatment in Patients with Haemophilia B Without Inhibitors.

INTRODUCTION: Recombinant factor IX (rFIX) and recombinant FIX Fc fusion protein (rFIXFc) are standard half-life and extended half-life FIX replacement therapies, respectively, and represent established treatment options indicated for adults and children with haemophilia B. These FIX replacement therapies can be administered as prophylaxis (to prevent bleeding) or 'on-demand' (to stop bleeding). This analysis aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of once-weekly prophylaxis with rFIXFc versus on-demand treatment with rFIX in patients with haemophilia B without inhibitors in the Italian healthcare setting. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to assess a hypothetical cohort of adolescent or adult male patients (≥ 12 years) with haemophilia B (FIX level of ≤ 2 IU/dL) without inhibitors. Model inputs were derived from the pivotal phase 3 clinical studies for rFIXFc and rFIX, published literature and assumptions when published data were unavailable. The model employed a lifelong time horizon with 6-monthly transitions between health states, and it estimated total costs, total quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), number of bleeds, number of surgeries and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. RESULTS: rFIXFc prophylaxis was associated with lower total costs per patient (€5,308,625 versus €6,564,510) and greater total QALYs per patient (15.936 versus 11.943) compared with rFIX on-demand; rFIXFc prophylaxis was therefore the dominant treatment strategy. The model also demonstrated that rFIXFc prophylaxis was associated with fewer incremental bleeds (- 682.29) and surgeries (- 0.39) compared with rFIX on-demand. CONCLUSIONS: rFIXFc prophylaxis provides improved health outcomes and lower costs, and represents a cost-effective treatment option compared with rFIX on-demand for adolescent and adult male patients with haemophilia B. This comparative assessment of cost-effectiveness should help to inform both clinicians and healthcare policy makers when making treatment decisions for patients with haemophilia B.

Cost-effectiveness of recombinant factor VIII Fc versus emicizumab for prophylaxis in adults and adolescents with haemophilia A without inhibitors in the UK.

INTRODUCTION: The economic and clinical burden of haemophilia A is high. Primary prophylaxis with factor VIII replacement therapy is the recognised standard of care, but the emergence of non-factor therapies, such as emicizumab, is extending treatment options for people with haemophilia A. AIM: There are currently no direct comparisons of efficacy or cost between recombinant factor FVIII Fc-fusion protein efmoroctocog alfa (a recombinant factor FVIII Fc-fusion protein referred to herein as rFVIIIFc) and emicizumab; therefore, a cost-effectiveness model was developed to compare prophylactic treatment with rFVIIIFc versus emicizumab in patients with haemophilia A without inhibitors in the UK. METHODS: The cost-effectiveness model was based on a matching-adjusted indirect comparison and included male patients, aged ≥12 years, with haemophilia A without inhibitors. The model was designed as a Markov process with a flexible lifelong time horizon, and cost-effectiveness was presented as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Base-case analysis and sensitivity analyses (including scenario analyses, one-way deterministic sensitivity analysis [DSA] and probability sensitivity analysis [PSA]) were performed using the following treatment strategies: individualised prophylaxis with rFVIIIFc and prophylaxis with emicizumab administered once weekly (scenario analyses used regimens of once every 2 weeks or once every 4 weeks). RESULTS: Base-case analysis, DSA and PSA indicated that, compared with emicizumab administered once weekly, rFVIIIFc individualised prophylaxis was the dominant treatment strategy, with lower costs, a greater number of quality-adjusted life years, and a lower number of bleeds. CONCLUSIONS: rFVIIIFc has proven efficacy and is cost-effective compared with emicizumab, providing clinicians with a viable treatment option to improve the health outcomes for adults and adolescents with haemophilia A in the UK.

Efficacy and Safety of Avatrombopag in Patients with Chronic Immune Thrombocytopenia: A Systematic Literature Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: A network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to assess the efficacy and safety of avatrombopag, relative to eltrombopag, romiplostim, and fostamatinib, for patients with chronic immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) not responding adequately to corticosteroids. METHODS: A systematic search of publication and clinical trial databases was conducted to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. Data from eligible studies were extracted and analyzed in a Bayesian framework using relative effect sizes vs placebo. Outcomes included durable platelet response; need for rescue therapy; reduction in use of concomitant ITP medication; incidence of any or World Health Organization (WHO) grade 2-4 bleeding events, and any adverse events. Results were reported as odds ratios or incidence rate ratios (IRR) with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). RESULTS: The NMA included seven phase 3 RCTs. Compared with placebo, avatrombopag was associated with statistically significant improvements in durable platelet response, reduction in use of concomitant ITP medication, and incidence of any bleeding events. Statistically significant differences vs placebo were also observed for durable platelet response and need for rescue therapy (eltrombopag, romiplostim, and fostamatinib); reduction in use of concomitant ITP medication (eltrombopag and romiplostim); incidence of any bleeding events (fostamatinib); and incidence of WHO grade 2-4 bleeding events (romiplostim and fostamatinib). No statistically significant differences were observed for any adverse events. Avatrombopag was associated with a statistically significant lower incidence of any bleeding events vs eltrombopag (IRR 0.38 [95% CrI 0.19, 0.75]) and romiplostim (IRR 0.38 [95% Crl 0.17, 0.86]); no other between-treatment differences were observed. CONCLUSION: In this NMA, avatrombopag significantly increased the chance of achieving durable platelet response and reducing the use of concomitant ITP medication vs placebo, and significantly reduced the incidence of any bleeding events compared with placebo, eltrombopag, and romiplostim. The study aims to help guide clinicians managing patients with chronic ITP and insufficient response to previous treatment.