Haemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia · 2020
Cost-effectiveness of emicizumab vs bypassing agents in the prevention of bleeding episodes in haemophilia A patients with anti-FVIII inhibitors in France.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Polack Benoît, Trossaërt Marc, Cousin Mathias, Baffert Sandrine, Pruvot Alexandra, Godard Chloé
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The development of an anti-FVIII inhibitor is the most serious complication of haemophilia A occurring in up to 30% of severe haemophilic patients. The current management of haemophilia A with inhibitor uses bypassing agents (BPA) and represents a significant therapeutic burden together with a limited adherence to prophylactic treatment. Emicizumab is the first monoclonal antibody developed in haemophilia A approved for the prevention of bleeding episodes in patients with anti-FVIII inhibitor.
AIM: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of emicizumab versus BPAs.
METHODS: A Markov model was developed over a five-year time horizon to estimate the comparative costs and benefits of the different therapeutic approaches in this rare disease. Model inputs were clinical, including annual bleeding rate and quality of life, and economical including mainly costs of prophylaxis, bleeds and adverse events.
RESULTS: Emicizumab treatment is dominant, ie lest costly and more effective, in the base-case analysis saving 234 191 € for a gain of 0.88 QALY. This is confirmed by both the deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. The main limit of the study remains the absence of long-term clinical data allowing to relate treatment consumption to clinical benefit, especially in the progression of haemophilic arthropathy.
CONCLUSION: Our results show that emicizumab is a cost-effective treatment allowing to consider an easy to implement prophylactic treatment for haemophilia A patients with anti-FVIII inhibitors.
AIM: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of emicizumab versus BPAs.
METHODS: A Markov model was developed over a five-year time horizon to estimate the comparative costs and benefits of the different therapeutic approaches in this rare disease. Model inputs were clinical, including annual bleeding rate and quality of life, and economical including mainly costs of prophylaxis, bleeds and adverse events.
RESULTS: Emicizumab treatment is dominant, ie lest costly and more effective, in the base-case analysis saving 234 191 € for a gain of 0.88 QALY. This is confirmed by both the deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. The main limit of the study remains the absence of long-term clinical data allowing to relate treatment consumption to clinical benefit, especially in the progression of haemophilic arthropathy.
CONCLUSION: Our results show that emicizumab is a cost-effective treatment allowing to consider an easy to implement prophylactic treatment for haemophilia A patients with anti-FVIII inhibitors.