Tanja M Windegger1, Son Nghiem2, Kim-Huong Nguyen3,4, Yoke-Lin Fung1, Paul A Scuffham2. 1. School of Health and Sport Sciences, University of the Sunshine Coast, Sippy Downs, QLD, Australia. 2. Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Nathan, QLD, Australia. 3. Centre for Health Services Research, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Qld, 4072, Australia. 4. Health Service Strategy and Planning, Metro North Hospital and Health Services, Brisbane, Qld, 4029, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Immunoglobulin replacement therapy (IRT) is often used to support patients with primary immunodeficiency disease (PID) and secondary immunodeficiency disease (SID). Home-based subcutaneous immunoglobulin (SCIg) is reported to be a cheaper and more efficient option compared to hospital-based intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) for PID. In contrast, there is little information on the cost-effectiveness of IRT in SID. However, patients who develop hypogammaglobulinaemia secondary to other conditions (SID) have different clinical aetiology compared to PID. This study assesses whether SCIg provides a good value-for-money treatment option in patients with secondary immunodeficiency disease (SID). METHODS: A Markov cohort simulation model with six health states was used to compare cost-effectiveness of IVIg with SCIg from a healthcare system perspective. The costs of treatment, infection and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for IVIg and SCIg treatment options were modelled with a time horizon of 10 years and weekly cycles. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed around key parameters. RESULTS: The cumulative cost for IVIg was A$151 511 and for SCIg A$144 296. The QALYs with IVIg were 3·07 and with SCIg 3·51. Based on the means, SCIg is the dominant strategy with better outcomes and at lower cost. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis shows that 88·3% of the 50 000 iterations fall below the nominated willingness to pay threshold of A$50 000 per QALY. Therefore, SCIg is a cost-effective treatment option. CONCLUSION: For SID patients in Queensland (Australia), the home-based SCIg treatment option provides better health outcomes and cost savings.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Immunoglobulin replacement therapy (IRT) is often used to support patients with primary immunodeficiency disease (PID) and secondary immunodeficiency disease (SID). Home-based subcutaneous immunoglobulin (SCIg) is reported to be a cheaper and more efficient option compared to hospital-based intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) for PID. In contrast, there is little information on the cost-effectiveness of IRT in SID. However, patients who develop hypogammaglobulinaemia secondary to other conditions (SID) have different clinical aetiology compared to PID. This study assesses whether SCIg provides a good value-for-money treatment option in patients with secondary immunodeficiency disease (SID). METHODS: A Markov cohort simulation model with six health states was used to compare cost-effectiveness of IVIg with SCIg from a healthcare system perspective. The costs of treatment, infection and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for IVIg and SCIg treatment options were modelled with a time horizon of 10 years and weekly cycles. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed around key parameters. RESULTS: The cumulative cost for IVIg was A$151 511 and for SCIg A$144 296. The QALYs with IVIg were 3·07 and with SCIg 3·51. Based on the means, SCIg is the dominant strategy with better outcomes and at lower cost. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis shows that 88·3% of the 50 000 iterations fall below the nominated willingness to pay threshold of A$50 000 per QALY. Therefore, SCIg is a cost-effective treatment option. CONCLUSION: For SIDpatients in Queensland (Australia), the home-based SCIg treatment option provides better health outcomes and cost savings.
Authors: Di Sun; Jennifer R Heimall; Matthew J Greenhawt; Nancy J Bunin; Marcus S Shaker; Neil Romberg Journal: JAMA Pediatr Date: 2022-02-01 Impact factor: 16.193