Patient and Caregiver Outcomes After Onasemnogene Abeparvovec Treatment: Findings from the Cure SMA 2021 Membership Survey.

INTRODUCTION: Onasemnogene abeparvovec (OA) is the only gene replacement therapy currently approved for spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) treatment. We sought to assess real-world patient and caregiver outcomes after OA treatment for SMA. METHODS: Patients who received OA were identified from the 2021 Cure SMA Membership Survey. Those treated at 6-23 months of age were matched to non-patients treated with OA on the basis of age at the time of survey and survival motor neuron 2 gene copy number. Patient characteristics, motor milestones, and resource and supportive care use, as well as caregiver proxy-reported health-related quality of life (HRQOL), were described. Caregiver unmet needs and HRQOL were also assessed. RESULTS: Of the 614 patients in the survey, 64 received OA, and 17 were matched with 28 non-OA-treated patients. In general, a greater percentage of OA-treated patients achieved various motor milestones, including 100% sitting without support and 58.8% walking with assistance. OA-treated patients also had numerically lower rates of hospitalization and surgery. None required tracheostomy with a ventilator. The rate of using oxygen or a breathing machine for more than 16 h was also lower for OA-treated patients. OA-treated patients had less frequent trouble swallowing. HRQOL was reported to be similar to non-OA-treated patients. Caregivers of OA-treated patients reported better patient mobility scores and less work impairment. CONCLUSIONS: The study suggests that treatment with OA is associated with greater rates of motor milestone achievements and less resource and supportive care use for patients with SMA treated at 6-23 months of age in the real world. For caregivers, it may also potentially reduce unmet needs, improve HRQOL, and reduce work impairment.

Health Care Resource Utilization and Costs for Patients with Spinal Muscular Atrophy: Findings from a Retrospective US Claims Database Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) is a neurogenic disorder associated with progressive loss of muscle function, respiratory failure, and premature mortality. This study aimed to describe and compare real-world health care resource utilization (HCRU) and costs for US patients with SMA treated with disease-modifying treatments, including onasemnogene abeparvovec, nusinersen, and/or risdiplam. METHODS: This study used claims and structured electronic medical record data from the HealthVerity claims database (January 1, 2017-March 31, 2021). Eligible patients were aged ≤ 2 years at index (treatment initiation or switch), diagnosed with SMA, had ≥ 1 pharmacy/medical claim for onasemnogene abeparvovec, nusinersen, and/or risdiplam, and continuous enrollment ≥ 1 month pre- and ≥ 2 months post-index. SMA-related HCRU and costs during the study period (> 12 months post-index) were compared between treatment groups before and after propensity score weighting. Costs were adjusted to 2021 USD. RESULTS: Of 74 included patients, 62 (83.8%) received nusinersen and 12 (16.2%) received onasemnogene abeparvovec (monotherapy, n = 9; onasemnogene abeparvovec after nusinersen [switching], n = 3). After weighting, nusinersen-treated patients had greater annual numbers of inpatient (mean 5.3 nusinersen vs. 1.8 onasemnogene abeparvovec) and emergency department (mean 3.0 nusinersen vs. 1.5 onasemnogene abeparvovec; p < 0.05) visits, and greater annual SMA-related medical costs (mean $78,446 nusinersen vs. $29,438 onasemnogene abeparvovec; mean difference $49,007, p < 0.05) than onasemnogene abeparvovec-treated patients. Onasemnogene abeparvovec-treated patients incurred greater SMA-treatment pharmacy costs than nusinersen-treated patients (mean $2,241,875 onasemnogene abeparvovec vs. $693,191 nusinersen; mean difference $1,548,684, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: SMA is associated with substantial economic burden. Patients treated with onasemnogene abeparvovec had greater SMA treatment-related pharmacy costs but lower SMA-related HCRU and medical costs compared with patients receiving nusinersen monotherapy.

Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) is a crippling neurodegenerative disease with symptoms of respiratory failure, muscle weakness and loss of function, and premature death. This study describes and compares real-world health care resource utilization (HCRU) and costs for US patients with SMA receiving current treatments (e.g., onasemnogene abeparvovec, nusinersen, risdiplam) using claims and electronic medical record data from a US claims database. Patients included (n = 74) in the study were ≤ 2 years old at treatment initiation/switching of treatments (index), had been diagnosed with SMA and had one or more pharmacy or medical claim for onasemnogene abeparvovec, nusinersen, or risdiplam, and were continuously enrolled for ≥ 1 month before and ≥ 2 months after index. SMA-related HCRU and costs during the study period (up to 12 months post-index) were compared between treatment groups before and after propensity score weighting, with costs adjusted to 2021 USD. Propensity score weighting allows better comparison between patients in treatment and comparison groups by assigning patients different "weights." This weighting allows investigators to be certain that differences in outcomes between patient groups are a result of a particular treatment. After weighting, nusinersen-treated patients had a greater number of inpatient and emergency department visits and greater SMA-related medical costs annually, whereas patients who received onasemnogene abeparvovec had greater pharmacy costs. Our study indicates the greater medical costs among patients receiving nusinersen were largely driven by invasive procedures, such as tracheostomy and gastrostomy, that required hospitalization, but the exact mechanism of greater HCRU/costs associated with nusinersen needs to be further assessed.

Systematic Literature Review of Clinical and Economic Evidence for Spinal Muscular Atrophy.

INTRODUCTION: The recent advent of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) has dramatically changed the treatment landscape of spinal muscular atrophy (SMA), and the multifaceted impact of this advancement has not been assessed thoroughly in the growing body of literature. We sought to summarize the literature on the natural history of SMA and the impact of SMA DMTs, including health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and utilities, clinical efficacy and safety, and economic impact. METHODS: Systematic literature reviews were conducted following PRISMA guidelines with no inclusive dates. Relevant studies were identified by searching full-text databases on November 12-13, 2020, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EconLit, conference proceedings, health technology assessment databases, and clinical trial registries. All searches used a combination of MeSH and key terms. Studies were screened according to criteria based upon population, intervention, outcomes, and study design structure. RESULTS: Findings from 17, 23, 32, and 42 studies were included for the evaluation of natural history of SMA, HRQOL and utilities, clinical efficacy and safety, and economic impact of DMTs, respectively. Currently available data indicate that untreated SMA is associated with considerable humanistic and economic burden, with estimates of costs varying by treatment. While a variety of interventions have been evaluated in SMA clinical trials, quantitative synthesis of safety and efficacy findings was not feasible because of inconsistencies in reported outcomes. Data assessing impacts of DMTs on HRQOL were also lacking. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, this systematic literature review highlights a clear need for up-to-date and methodologically rigorous clinical, HRQOL, and economic data to support unbiased assessments of the relative clinical and economic effectiveness of SMA treatments. More research is required to extend our understanding of the burden of SMA on HRQOL utility assessments and the impact of new DMTs on HRQOL and utilities for patients with SMA.

Nusinersen for Spinal Muscular Atrophy in the United States: Findings From a Retrospective Claims Database Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) is a rare, genetic neuromuscular disorder caused by deletion/mutation of the survival motor neuron 1 gene, characterized by progressive loss of motor neurons, resulting in increasing muscular weakness, deteriorating motor function, and, in its most severe form, death before 2 years. Nusinersen, an antisense oligonucleotide that increases expression of the functional SMN protein, was approved for SMA by US and European regulatory agencies in 2016 and 2017, respectively. The indicated regimen requires intrathecal injections every 4 months, following the first four injections during the loading phase. Adherence is integral to treatment success. Adherence to nusinersen may pose particular challenges as most patients with SMA are young children who require complex multidisciplinary care (including ongoing intrathecal treatment administration and potential specialized anesthetic and surgical procedures) at specialized centers. However, real-world data on adherence to nusinersen are limited. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective claims database analysis from December 23, 2016, to November 20, 2019, to study nusinersen adherence and discontinuation/persistence in US patients with SMA types 1-3 who completed the loading phase, and to determine the impact of non-adherence or treatment discontinuation on SMA-related comorbidities, health care resource utilization (HCRU), and costs. RESULTS: We identified 23 patients with SMA type 1, 41 patients with SMA type 2, and 260 patients with SMA type 3 who had completed the loading phase. Deviations from the indicated nusinersen treatment schedule were frequent in real-world usage, with most patients receiving ≥1 dose outside the scheduled interval. Across SMA types, non-adherent patients were more likely to have had SMA-related comorbidities (e.g., feeding difficulties, dyspnea and respiratory anomalies, and muscle weakness) and greater HCRU. Persistence rates 12 months after treatment initiation for patients with SMA types 1, 2, and 3 were 55.2%, 42.4%, and 54.6%, respectively. Patients who discontinued nusinersen and those who did not had generally similar comorbidity profiles. Discontinuation was associated with greater health care costs across SMA types. CONCLUSION: Our analysis of claims data indicated that discontinuation and non-adherence to nusinersen treatment were prevalent, and associated with greater frequency of comorbidities, greater HCRU, and increased costs for patients.

An updated cost-utility model for onasemnogene abeparvovec (Zolgensma®) in spinal muscular atrophy type 1 patients and comparison with evaluation by the Institute for Clinical and Effectiveness Review (ICER).

Background: Recent cost-utility analysis (CUA) models for onasemnogene abeparvovec (Zolgensma®, formerly AVXS-101) in spinal muscular atrophy type 1 (SMA1) differ on key assumptions and results. Objective: To compare the manufacturer's proprietary CUA model to the model published by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), and to update the manufacturer's model with long-term follow-up data and some key ICER assumptions. Study design: We updated a recent CUA evaluating value for money in cost per incremental Quality-adjusted Life Year (QALY) of onasemnogene abeparvovec versus nusinersen (Spinraza®) or best supportive care (BSC) in symptomatic SMA1 patients, and compared it to the ICER model. Setting/Perspective: USA/Commercial payer Participants: Children aged <2 years with SMA1. Interventions: Onasemnogene abeparvovec, a single-dose gene replacement therapy, versus nusinersen, an antisense oligonucleotide, versus BSC. Main outcome measure: Incremental-cost effectiveness ratio and value-based price using traditional thresholds for general medicines in the US. Results: Updated survival (undiscounted) predicted by the model was 37.60 years for onasemnogene abeparvovec compared to 12.10 years for nusinersen and 7.27 years for BSC. Updated quality-adjusted survival using ICER's utility scores and discounted at 3% were 13.33, 2.85, and 1.15 discounted QALYs for onasemnogene abeparvovec, nusinersen, and BSC, respectively. Using estimated net prices, the discounted lifetime cost/patient was $3.93 M for onasemnogene abeparvovec, $4.60 M for nusinersen, and $1.96 M for BSC. The incremental cost per QALY gained for onasemnogene abeparvovec was dominant against nusinersen and $161,648 against BSC. These results broadly align with the results of the ICER model, which predicted a cost per QALY gained of $139,000 compared with nusinersen, and $243,000 compared with BSC (assuming a placeholder price of $2 M for onasemnogene abeparvovec), differences in methodology notwithstanding. Exploratory analyses in presymptomatic patients were similar. Conclusion: This updated CUA model is similar to ICER analyses comparing onasemnogene abeparvovec with nusinersen in the symptomatic and presymptomatic SMA populations. At a list price of $2.125 M, onasemnogene abeparvovec is cost-effective compared to nusinersen for SMA1 patients treated before age 2 years. When compared to BSC, cost per QALY of onasemnogene abeparvovec is higher than commonly used thresholds for therapies in the USA ($150,000 per QALY).

Utilization of multiple-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to support healthcare decision-making FIFARMA, 2016.

Background and objectives:   MCDA is a decision-making tool with increasing use in the healthcare sector, including HTA (Health Technology Assessment). By applying multiple criteria, including innovation, in a comprehensive, structured and explicit manner, MCDA fosters a transparent, participative, consistent decision-making process taking into consideration values of all stakeholders. This paper by FIFARMA (Latin American Federation of Pharmaceutical Industry) proposes the deliberative (partial) MCDA as a more pragmatic, agile approach, especially when newly implemented. Methods: Literature review including real-world examples of effective MCDA implementation in healthcare decision making in both the public and private sector worldwide and in LA. Results and conclusion: It is the view of FIFARMA that MCDA should strongly be considered as a tool to support HTA and broader healthcare decision making such as the contracts and tenders process in order to foster transparency, fairness, and collaboration amongst stakeholders.