Cost-effectiveness study comparing pharmaceutically licensed plasma for transfusion (OctaplasLG®) versus fresh frozen plasma (FFP) in critically Ill patients in the UK

Cost-effectiveness of iptacopan for paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria

ABSTRACT

Iptacopan, a novel oral factor B inhibitor, recently obtained US Food and Drug Administration approval for treating paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria, a rare blood disorder characterized by persistent complement-mediated hemolytic anemia. The standard-of-care (SOC) has traditionally relied on complement C5 inhibitors eculizumab and ravulizumab, which are limited by persistent anemia from extravascular hemolysis and requirement for intravenous infusion. Recent publication of phase 3 studies in this arena reinforces iptacopan as an effective anticomplement monotherapy compared with SOC. Given ongoing price negotiations and limited literature showing its cost-ineffectiveness in the anti-C5-treated population, we conducted a comprehensive cost-effectiveness analysis of iptacopan monotherapy in anti-C5-treated patients from the societal perspective, as compared with C5 inhibition. The primary outcomes were the incremental net monetary benefit across a lifetime horizon and the cost-effective maximum monthly threshold price of iptacopan monotherapy compared with the SOC. The secondary outcome was time saved for patients and nurses with the use of oral iptacopan therapy. Iptacopan monotherapy and SOC accrued 12.6 and 10.8 quality-adjusted life-years at costs of $9.52 million and $13.5 million, respectively. Iptacopan monotherapy remained cost saving across extensive sensitivity and all scenario analyses, including alternative parameterization for anemia resolution and aggregated individual-level utilities and transition probability matrix. Across all probabilistic sensitivity analyses, iptacopan monotherapy was favored over SOC in 100% of 10 000 Monte Carlo iterations. Cost-saving thresholds for iptacopan vs anti-C5 are ∼1.1, 1.4, and 1.4 in Brazil, Japan, and the United States, respectively. Iptacopan monotherapy can improve quality-adjusted life expectancy for patients while saving health care costs across jurisdictions.

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.

Avatrombopag and lusutrombopag for thrombocytopenia in people with chronic liver disease needing an elective procedure: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

There have been no licensed treatment options in the UK for treating thrombocytopenia in people with chronic liver disease requiring surgery. Established management largely involves platelet transfusion prior to the procedure or as rescue therapy for bleeding due to the procedure.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two thrombopoietin receptor agonists, avatrombopag (Doptelet^®; Dova Pharmaceuticals, Durham, NC, USA) and lusutrombopag (Mulpleta^®; Shionogi Inc., London, UK), in addition to established clinical management compared with established clinical management (no thrombopoietin receptor agonist) in the licensed populations.

DESIGN

Systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.

SETTING

Secondary care.

PARTICIPANTS

Severe thrombocytopenia (platelet count of < 50,000/µl) in people with chronic liver disease requiring surgery.

INTERVENTIONS

Lusutrombopag 3 mg and avatrombopag (60 mg if the baseline platelet count is < 40,000/µl and 40 mg if it is 40,000-< 50,000/µl).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Risk of platelet transfusion and rescue therapy or risk of rescue therapy only.

REVIEW METHODS

Systematic review including meta-analysis. English-language and non-English-language articles were obtained from several databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, all searched from inception to 29 May 2019.

ECONOMIC EVALUATION

Model-based cost-effectiveness analysis.

RESULTS

From a comprehensive search retrieving 11,305 records, six studies were included. Analysis showed that avatrombopag and lusutrombopag were superior to no thrombopoietin receptor agonist in avoiding both platelet transfusion and rescue therapy or rescue therapy only, and mostly with a statistically significant difference (i.e. 95% confidence intervals not overlapping the point of no difference). However, only avatrombopag seemed to be superior to no thrombopoietin receptor agonist in reducing the risk of rescue therapy, although far fewer patients in the lusutrombopag trials than in the avatrombopag trials received rescue therapy. When assessing the cost-effectiveness of lusutrombopag and avatrombopag, it was found that, despite the success of these in avoiding platelet transfusions prior to surgery, the additional long-term gain in quality-adjusted life-years was very small. No thrombopoietin receptor agonist was clearly cheaper than both lusutrombopag and avatrombopag, as the cost savings from avoiding platelet transfusions were more than offset by the drug cost. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that, for all thresholds below £100,000, no thrombopoietin receptor agonist had 100% probability of being cost-effective.

LIMITATIONS

Some of the rescue therapy data for lusutrombopag were not available. There were inconsistencies in the avatrombopag data. From the cost-effectiveness point of view, there were several additional important gaps in the evidence required, including the lack of a price for avatrombopag.

CONCLUSIONS

Avatrombopag and lusutrombopag were superior to no thrombopoietin receptor agonist in avoiding both platelet transfusion and rescue therapy, but they were not cost-effective given the lack of benefit and increase in cost.

FUTURE WORK

A head-to-head trial is warranted.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019125311.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 51. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of lusutrombopag for thrombocytopenia in patients with chronic liver disease in Japan

Background and Aim

Thrombocytopenia is a frequent hematological condition in chronic liver disease (CLD) patients increasing the risk of bleeding in patients undergoing invasive procedures. Without an alternative, clinical guidelines recommended the use of platelet transfusion (PT) prior to procedure to prevent this bleeding risk. Lusutrombopag (LUSU), an orally active, small‐molecule thrombopoietin receptor agonist, was developed as an alternative to PT. The objective of this study was to evaluate a cost‐effectiveness of LUSU as a potential alternative to PT in Japan.

Methods

A cost‐effectiveness analysis of LUSU relative to PT was conducted by a simulation model consisting of a decision tree combined to Markov model. Quality‐adjusted life years (QALYs) were used as an indicator of efficacy, and the analysis was conducted from the Japanese public healthcare payer's perspective. The time horizon of the analysis was 50 years (a lifetime) and the discount rate was set at 2%.

Results

LUSU gained 6.1803 QALYs with an expected lifetime costs of 2 380 219 JPY compared to PT with 6.1712 QALYs gained and expected lifetime costs of 2 382 908 JPY. Thus, LUSU was deemed dominant compared with PT. Based on probabilistic analyses, the chance of LUSU being dominant and the incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio being below 5 million JPY/QALY was estimated at 51.8% and 78.3%, respectively, demonstrating the robustness of the results.

Conclusions

LUSU was evaluated as an efficacious and cost‐saving treatment option for Japanese CLD patients with thrombocytopenia who required a planned invasive procedure compared with PT and economically should be considered as an alternative treatment.

Health-Related Quality-of-Life and Cost Utility Analyses in Critical Care: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

Cost utility analyses compare the costs and health outcome of interventions, with a denominator of quality-adjusted life year, a generic health utility measure combining both quality and quantity of life. Cost utility analyses are difficult to compare when methods are not standardized. It is unclear how cost utility analyses are measured/reported in critical care and what methodologic challenges cost utility analyses pose in this setting. This may lead to differences precluding cost utility analyses comparisons. Therefore, we performed a systematic review of cost utility analyses conducted in critical care. Our objectives were to understand: 1) methodologic characteristics, 2) how health-related quality-of-life was measured/reported, and 3) what costs were reported/measured.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

We systematically searched for cost utility analyses in critical care in MEDLINE, Embase, American College of Physicians Journal Club, CENTRAL, Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews' selected subset of archived versions of UK National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and American Economic Association electronic databases from inception to April 30, 2020.

SETTING

Adult ICUs.

PATIENTS

Adult critically ill patients.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Of 8,926 citations, 80 cost utility analyse studies were eligible. The time horizon most commonly reported was lifetime (59%). For health utility reporting, health-related quality-of-life was infrequently measured (29% reported), with only 5% of studies reporting baseline health-related quality-of-life. Indirect utility measures (generic, preference-based health utility measurement tools) were reported in 85% of studies (majority Euro-quality-of-life-5 Domains, 52%). Methods of estimating health-related quality-of-life were seldom used when the patient was incapacitated: imputation (19%), assigning fixed utilities for incapacitation (19%), and surrogates reporting on behalf of incapacitated patients (5%). For cost utility reporting transparency, separate incremental costs and quality-adjusted life years were both reported in only 76% of studies. Disaggregated quality-adjusted life years (reporting separate health utility and life years) were described in only 34% of studies.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified deficiencies which warrant recommendations (standardized measurement/reporting of resource use/unit costs/health-related quality-of-life/methodological preferences) for improved design, conduct, and reporting of future cost utility analyses in critical care.

Cost-Effectiveness Studies in the ICU: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

Cost-effectiveness analyses are increasingly used to aid decisions about resource allocation in healthcare; this practice is slow to translate into critical care. We sought to identify and summarize original cost-effectiveness studies presenting cost per quality-adjusted life year, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, or cost per life-year ratios for treatments used in ICUs.

DESIGN

We conducted a systematic search of the English-language literature for cost-effectiveness analyses published from 1993 to 2018 in critical care. Study quality was assessed using the Drummond checklist.

SETTING

Critical care units.

PATIENTS OR SUBJECTS

Critical care patients.

INTERVENTIONS

Identified studies with cost-effectiveness analyses.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

We identified 97 studies published through 2018 with 156 cost-effectiveness ratios. Reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from -$119,635 (hypothetical cohort of patients requiring either intermittent or continuous renal replacement therapy) to $876,539 (data from an acute renal failure study in which continuous renal replacement therapy was the most expensive therapy). Many studies reported favorable cost-effectiveness profiles (i.e., below $50,000 per life year or quality-adjusted life year). However, several therapies have since been proven harmful. Over 2 decades, relatively few cost-effectiveness studies in critical care have been published (average 4.6 studies per year). There has been a more recent trend toward using hypothetical cohorts and modeling scenarios without proven clinical data (2014-2018: 19/33 [58%]).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite critical care being a significant healthcare cost burden there remains a paucity of studies in the literature evaluating its cost effectiveness.

Comprehensive US government program for dried plasma development

Transfusion of plasma early after severe injury has been associated with improved survival. There are significant logistic factors that limit the ability to deliver plasma where needed in austere environments, such as the battlefield or during a significant civilian emergency. While some countries have access to more logistically supportable dried plasma, there is no such product approved for use in the United States. There is a clear need for a Food and Drug Administration (FDA)‐approved dried plasma for military and emergency‐preparedness uses, as well as for civilian use in remote or austere settings. The Department of Defense (DoD) and Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority are sponsoring development of three dried plasma products, incorporating different technologic approaches and business models. At the same time, the DoD is sponsoring prospective, randomized clinical studies on the prehospital use of plasma. These efforts are part of a coordinated program to provide a dried plasma for military and civilian applications and to produce additional information on plasma use so that, by the time we have an FDA‐approved dried plasma, we will better understand how to use it.

Health Technology Assessment of pathogen reduction technologies applied to plasma for clinical use

Although existing clinical evidence shows that the transfusion of blood components is becoming increasingly safe, the risk of transmission of known and unknown pathogens, new pathogens or re-emerging pathogens still persists. Pathogen reduction technologies may offer a new approach to increase blood safety. The study is the output of collaboration between the Italian National Blood Centre and the Post-Graduate School of Health Economics and Management, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy. A large, multidisciplinary team was created and divided into six groups, each of which addressed one or more HTA domains.Plasma treated with amotosalen + UV light, riboflavin + UV light, methylene blue or a solvent/detergent process was compared to fresh-frozen plasma with regards to current use, technical features, effectiveness, safety, economic and organisational impact, and ethical, social and legal implications. The available evidence is not sufficient to state which of the techniques compared is superior in terms of efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness. Evidence on efficacy is only available for the solvent/detergent method, which proved to be non-inferior to untreated fresh-frozen plasma in the treatment of a wide range of congenital and acquired bleeding disorders. With regards to safety, the solvent/detergent technique apparently has the most favourable risk-benefit profile. Further research is needed to provide a comprehensive overview of the cost-effectiveness profile of the different pathogen-reduction techniques. The wide heterogeneity of results and the lack of comparative evidence are reasons why more comparative studies need to be performed.

Is solvent/detergent plasma better than standard fresh-frozen plasma? A systematic review and an expert consensus document

BACKGROUND

Only a few studies have compared solvent/detergent plasma (SD-plasma) to standard fresh-frozen plasma (FFP) in terms of efficacy and safety.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review was performed in order to develop a consensus document on the use of SD-plasma. Moreover, a pharmacoeconomic study was performed in order to assess whether the use of SD-plasma can be cost-effective with respect to the use of FFP. A multidisciplinary panel used the systematic review and the GRADE methodology to develop evidence-based recommendations on this topic.

RESULTS

Based on moderate to very low quality evidence, the panel developed the following consensus statements: (i) the panel suggested that SD-plasma is safer than FFP; (ii) the panel could not express for or against a greater efficacy of SD-plasma as compared to FFP; (iii) the panel suggested that in patients undergoing liver transplantation SD-plasma can be preferred over FFP; (iv) the panel suggested that SD-plasma can be preferred over FFP in patients with thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura undergoing plasma-exchange procedures; (v) the panel could not recommend for or against preferring SD-plasma over FFP in critical care patients; and (vi) the panel suggested that the use of SD-plasma can be cost-effective with respect to the use of FFP.

DISCUSSION

Data from additional randomised studies are needed to establish more definitive guidelines on the use of SD-plasma.

Solvent/detergent plasma: pharmaceutical characteristics and clinical experience

The solvent/detergent treatment is an established virus inactivation technology that has been industrially applied for manufacturing plasma derived medicinal products for almost 30 years. Solvent/detergent plasma is a pharmaceutical product with standardised content of clotting factors, devoid of antibodies implicated in transfusion-related acute lung injury pathogenesis, and with a very high level of decontamination from transfusion-transmissible infectious agents. Many clinical studies have confirmed its safety and efficacy in the setting of congenital as well as acquired bleeding disorders. This narrative review will focus on the pharmaceutical characteristics of solvent/detergent plasma and the clinical experience with this blood product.

The state of the art of removal of prion proteins in SD-FFP, by specific prion affinity chromatography and its impact on the hemostatic characteristics of the product

In recent Coimbra' Conference, on the pre-launch of pathogen reduced-FFP for the local clinical use, the question was raised, by the moderator, on the efficacy of the current methodology used for prion removal processes and its influence on the overall quality and safety of the final product. This brief paper put together by speaker of this session and the moderator, as a consensus of opinions, which was largely discussed during Q&A session, to make it available to a large group of readers of transfusion apheresis science, who might be interested to this topic. In short the capacity of the current process of Octaplas to remove prion is in order of 5.6 log10/ID50 reduction based on several animal studies. Moreover the changes in coagulation and inhibitors are within acceptable range and bioequivalent to untreated FFP with no sign of inferiority. This paper describes in brief a technology update on solvent/detergent treated plasma, an alternative to FFP but with increased pathogen safety. The biochemical profile of the final product is comparable with FFP and contains all clinically relevant plasma proteins. Furthermore, Octaplas is a product that, in long term, reduces health care costs.

Cost-effectiveness and budget impact study of solvent/detergent (SD) treated plasma (octaplasLG®) versus fresh-frozen plasma (FFP) in any patient receiving transfusion in Canada

The objectives of this study were to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of octaplasLG(®) compared with fresh-frozen plasma (FFP) in all patients receiving a transfusion in Canada. A decision analytic framework was used to model acute and long-term complications that could follow plasma transfusion. Over a life time horizon, the cost with octaplasLG(®) were CA$612.91, which is CA$303.14 less than those with FFP. OctaplasLG(®) resulted in 0.021 quality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained in comparison with FFP. Because of higher efficacy and lower costs, octaplasLG(®) is expected to be the dominant treatment option over FFP in Canada.