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 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.