David Carcedo Rodriguez1, Teresa Artola Urain2, Anabelle Chinea Rodriguez3, Estefanía García Torres4, Marta González Vicent5, Gonzalo Gutiérrez García6, Alexandra Regueiro García7, Marcos Calvo Hidalgo8, Alba Villacampa1. 1. Hygeia Consulting, S.L, Madrid, Spain. 2. Hematology and Hemotherapy Department, Hospital Donostia, País Vasco, Spain. 3. Hematology and Hemotherapy Services, Hospital Ramón y Cajal, Madrid, Spain. 4. Hematology Department, Hospital Reina Sofía, Córdoba, Spain. 5. Hematology and Hemotherapy Services, Hospital Niño Jesús, Madrid, Spain. 6. Bone Marrow Transplant Unit - Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, University of Barcelona, IDIBAPS, Barcelona, Spain. 7. Pediatrics Department, C.H.U. de Santiago, Galicia, Spain. 8. Onco-Hematology, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Iberia, Spain.
Abstract
AIMS: This study evaluated cost-effectiveness of defibrotide vs best supportive care (BSC) for the treatment of hepatic veno-occlusive disease/sinusoidal obstructive syndrome (VOD/SOS) with multiorgan dysfunction (MOD) post-hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) in Spain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A two-phase Markov model, comprising a 1-year acute phase with daily cycles and a lifetime long-term phase with annual cycles, was adapted to the Spanish setting. The model included a cohort of patients with severe VOD/SOS (defined as VOD/SOS with MOD) post-HCT. For the acute phase, efficacy and VOD/SOS-related length of stay were obtained from a phase 3 defibrotide study (NCT00358501). VOD/SOS-related hospital stays were 7.5 and 23.2 days in defibrotide-treated and BSC patients, respectively. Defibrotide-treated patients spent 30% of their stay in the intensive care unit vs 60% in BSC patients. Assumptions for the long-term phase and utility values were obtained from the literature. Costs were from the Spanish Health System perspective (€2019). Defibrotide cost was based on 25 mg/kg/day over 17.5 days, using local expert opinion. Life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and costs were estimated over a lifetime horizon, applying a 3% discount rate for costs and outcomes. Sensitivity analyses assessed the robustness of the results. RESULTS: Defibrotide produced an additional 1.214 QALYs and 1.348 LYs vs BSC, with a total cost of €33,708 more than BSC alone. However, defibrotide resulted in savings up to €16,644/patient for cost of hospital stay. Difference between costs and effective measures led to ratios of €27,757/QALY and €25,007/LY gained. Additional hospital stays had the greatest influence on base-case results. Probabilistic analysis confirmed the robustness of the deterministic results. LIMITATIONS: Limitations include use of historical controls and assumptions extrapolated from the literature. CONCLUSIONS: This cost-effectiveness model, adapted to the Spanish setting, showed that defibrotide is a cost-effective alternative to BSC alone in patients with severe VOD/SOS post-HCT.
AIMS: This study evaluated cost-effectiveness of defibrotide vs best supportive care (BSC) for the treatment of hepatic veno-occlusive disease/sinusoidal obstructive syndrome (VOD/SOS) with multiorgan dysfunction (MOD) post-hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) in Spain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A two-phase Markov model, comprising a 1-year acute phase with daily cycles and a lifetime long-term phase with annual cycles, was adapted to the Spanish setting. The model included a cohort of patients with severe VOD/SOS (defined as VOD/SOS with MOD) post-HCT. For the acute phase, efficacy and VOD/SOS-related length of stay were obtained from a phase 3 defibrotide study (NCT00358501). VOD/SOS-related hospital stays were 7.5 and 23.2 days in defibrotide-treated and BSC patients, respectively. Defibrotide-treated patients spent 30% of their stay in the intensive care unit vs 60% in BSC patients. Assumptions for the long-term phase and utility values were obtained from the literature. Costs were from the Spanish Health System perspective (€2019). Defibrotide cost was based on 25 mg/kg/day over 17.5 days, using local expert opinion. Life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and costs were estimated over a lifetime horizon, applying a 3% discount rate for costs and outcomes. Sensitivity analyses assessed the robustness of the results. RESULTS: Defibrotide produced an additional 1.214 QALYs and 1.348 LYs vs BSC, with a total cost of €33,708 more than BSC alone. However, defibrotide resulted in savings up to €16,644/patient for cost of hospital stay. Difference between costs and effective measures led to ratios of €27,757/QALY and €25,007/LY gained. Additional hospital stays had the greatest influence on base-case results. Probabilistic analysis confirmed the robustness of the deterministic results. LIMITATIONS: Limitations include use of historical controls and assumptions extrapolated from the literature. CONCLUSIONS: This cost-effectiveness model, adapted to the Spanish setting, showed that defibrotide is a cost-effective alternative to BSC alone in patients with severe VOD/SOS post-HCT.
Authors: Lina Stutz; Jörg P Halter; Dominik Heim; Jakob R Passweg; Michael Medinger Journal: Bone Marrow Transplant Date: 2022-01-04 Impact factor: 5.174