Value in health regional issues · 2022
Economic Evaluation of Immune Tolerance Induction in Children With Severe Hemophilia A and High-Responding Inhibitors: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Prophylaxis With Emicizumab.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Camelo Ricardo Mesquita, Barbosa Mariana Michel, Araújo Maiara Silva, Muniz Roberto Lúcio, Guerra Augusto Afonso, Godman Brian, Rezende Suely Meireles, Acurcio Francisco de Assis, Martin Antony P, Alvares-Teodoro Juliana
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to measure the cost-effectiveness of prophylaxis with emicizumab in PsHAhri on ITI in Brazil.
METHODS: A cost-effectiveness modeling analysis was used to estimate the costs per PsHAhri on ITI and the number of prevented bleedings from undertaking one intervention (prophylaxis with BpA) over another (prophylaxis with emicizumab), based on the Brazilian Ministry of Health perspective. Costs of ITI with recombinant FVIII, prophylaxis with BpA or emicizumab, and treated bleeding episodes with BpA costs were evaluated for PsHAhri who had ITI success or failure. This study was conducted with the perspective of the Brazilian Ministry of Health (payer).
RESULTS: During ITI, prophylaxis with BpA cost US $924 666/PsHAhri/ITI, whereas prophylaxis with emicizumab cost US $488 785/PsHAhri/ITI. During ITI, there was an average of 9.32 bleeding episodes/PsHAhri/ITI when BpA were used as prophylaxis and 0.67 bleeding/PsHAhri/ITI when emicizumab was used. By univariate deterministic sensitivity analysis, emicizumab remained dominant whichever variable was modified.
CONCLUSION: In this study, prophylaxis with emicizumab during ITI is a dominant option compared with prophylaxis with BpA during ITI.
METHODS: A cost-effectiveness modeling analysis was used to estimate the costs per PsHAhri on ITI and the number of prevented bleedings from undertaking one intervention (prophylaxis with BpA) over another (prophylaxis with emicizumab), based on the Brazilian Ministry of Health perspective. Costs of ITI with recombinant FVIII, prophylaxis with BpA or emicizumab, and treated bleeding episodes with BpA costs were evaluated for PsHAhri who had ITI success or failure. This study was conducted with the perspective of the Brazilian Ministry of Health (payer).
RESULTS: During ITI, prophylaxis with BpA cost US $924 666/PsHAhri/ITI, whereas prophylaxis with emicizumab cost US $488 785/PsHAhri/ITI. During ITI, there was an average of 9.32 bleeding episodes/PsHAhri/ITI when BpA were used as prophylaxis and 0.67 bleeding/PsHAhri/ITI when emicizumab was used. By univariate deterministic sensitivity analysis, emicizumab remained dominant whichever variable was modified.
CONCLUSION: In this study, prophylaxis with emicizumab during ITI is a dominant option compared with prophylaxis with BpA during ITI.