BACKGROUND: Cost is currently one of the most important aspects in haemophilia care. Factor concentrates absorb more than 90% of healthcare direct costs of haemophilia care, and the debate regarding the high cost of haemophilia treatments and their different use across different countries is increasing. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to review cost-effectiveness analyses conducted on treatment options in haemophilia, focusing on their results and their strengths and limitations; to highlight the possible issues associated with economic evaluations of new treatment options. METHODS: Electronic searches in PubMed and EMBASE were performed to retrieve papers published between November 2015 and September 2017 to update the previous review of economic evaluations of haemophilia treatments by Drummond et al. Reference lists of included articles and reviews were examined for relevant studies, which were assessed for their quality and their empirical results. RESULTS: Twenty-six relevant economic analyses were identified; 15 (57.7%) were conducted in patients with haemophilia with inhibitors while 11 (42.3%) involved patients without inhibitors. There were methodological variations among the included studies, and differences in the treatment schemes make a comparative assessment of interventions for patients with haemophilia difficult. Only immune tolerance induction showed consistent results in its cost-saving profile compared with the treatment with bypassing agents. CONCLUSIONS: Economic evaluations of haemophilia treatments are increasing, but the identification of general cost-effectiveness trends is still difficult in these studies. We are now facing a new era in haemophilia management with a soaring need for high-quality economic evaluations, performed through proactive collaboration between clinical experts, budget holders and health economists.
BACKGROUND: Cost is currently one of the most important aspects in haemophilia care. Factor concentrates absorb more than 90% of healthcare direct costs of haemophilia care, and the debate regarding the high cost of haemophilia treatments and their different use across different countries is increasing. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to review cost-effectiveness analyses conducted on treatment options in haemophilia, focusing on their results and their strengths and limitations; to highlight the possible issues associated with economic evaluations of new treatment options. METHODS: Electronic searches in PubMed and EMBASE were performed to retrieve papers published between November 2015 and September 2017 to update the previous review of economic evaluations of haemophilia treatments by Drummond et al. Reference lists of included articles and reviews were examined for relevant studies, which were assessed for their quality and their empirical results. RESULTS: Twenty-six relevant economic analyses were identified; 15 (57.7%) were conducted in patients with haemophilia with inhibitors while 11 (42.3%) involved patients without inhibitors. There were methodological variations among the included studies, and differences in the treatment schemes make a comparative assessment of interventions for patients with haemophilia difficult. Only immune tolerance induction showed consistent results in its cost-saving profile compared with the treatment with bypassing agents. CONCLUSIONS: Economic evaluations of haemophilia treatments are increasing, but the identification of general cost-effectiveness trends is still difficult in these studies. We are now facing a new era in haemophilia management with a soaring need for high-quality economic evaluations, performed through proactive collaboration between clinical experts, budget holders and health economists.
Authors: B M Feldman; L Aledort; M Bullinger; F M Delaney; A S Doria; S Funk; P Giangrande; B Lundin; M Manco-Johnson; A Miners; P C Scriba; A Srivastava; W Schramm; V S Blanchette Journal: Haemophilia Date: 2007-09-10 Impact factor: 4.287
Authors: Don Husereau; Michael Drummond; Stavros Petrou; Chris Carswell; David Moher; Dan Greenberg; Federico Augustovski; Andrew H Briggs; Josephine Mauskopf; Elizabeth Loder Journal: Value Health Date: 2013 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: A Farrugia; J Cassar; M C Kimber; M Bansal; K Fischer; G Auserswald; B O'Mahony; K Tolley; D Noone; S Balboni Journal: Haemophilia Date: 2013-03-28 Impact factor: 4.287
Authors: A Gringeri; C Leissinger; P A Cortesi; H Jo; F Fusco; S Riva; B Antmen; E Berntorp; C Biasoli; S Carpenter; K Kavakli; M Morfini; C Négrier; A Rocino; W Schramm; J Windyga; B Zülfikar; L G Mantovani Journal: Haemophilia Date: 2013-06-04 Impact factor: 4.287