Joseph Khoa Ho1, Kennedy Borle1, Nick Dragojlovic1, Manrubby Dhillon1, Vanessa Kitchin2, Nicola Kopac1, Colin Ross3, Larry D Lynd4,5. 1. Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Collaboration for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. 2. Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. 3. Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. 4. Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Collaboration for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. larry.lynd@ubc.ca. 5. Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, Providence Health Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada. larry.lynd@ubc.ca.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review was to summarize all available evidence on the cost effectiveness of potentially curative gene therapies and identify challenges that economic evaluations face in this area. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of four databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, EconLit) and grey literature sources. We conducted the search on August 23, 2019 and updated it on November 26, 2020. We included all English, French and Spanish language studies that addressed a gene therapy that had received regulatory approval or had entered a phase III trial, and also reported on costs related to the therapy. Critical appraisal was conducted to assess quality of reporting in included studies. RESULTS: Fifty-six studies were identified. Of the 42 full economic evaluations, 71% (n = 30) evaluated chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies, most used either a Markov model (n = 17, 40%) and/or a partitioned survival model (n = 17, 40%), and 76% (n = 32) adopted a public or private payer perspective. The model characteristics with the greatest impact on cost effectiveness included assumptions about the efficacy of the treatment and the comparators used. CONCLUSION: All gene therapies in this review were shown to be more effective than their comparators, although due to high costs not all were considered cost effective at standard cost-effectiveness thresholds. Despite their high cost, some gene therapies have the potential to dominate the alternatives in conditions with high mortality/disability. The choice of comparator and assumptions regarding long-term effectiveness had substantial impacts on cost-effectiveness estimates and need to be carefully considered. Both the quality of inputs and the quality of reporting were highly variable.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review was to summarize all available evidence on the cost effectiveness of potentially curative gene therapies and identify challenges that economic evaluations face in this area. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of four databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, EconLit) and grey literature sources. We conducted the search on August 23, 2019 and updated it on November 26, 2020. We included all English, French and Spanish language studies that addressed a gene therapy that had received regulatory approval or had entered a phase III trial, and also reported on costs related to the therapy. Critical appraisal was conducted to assess quality of reporting in included studies. RESULTS: Fifty-six studies were identified. Of the 42 full economic evaluations, 71% (n = 30) evaluated chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies, most used either a Markov model (n = 17, 40%) and/or a partitioned survival model (n = 17, 40%), and 76% (n = 32) adopted a public or private payer perspective. The model characteristics with the greatest impact on cost effectiveness included assumptions about the efficacy of the treatment and the comparators used. CONCLUSION: All gene therapies in this review were shown to be more effective than their comparators, although due to high costs not all were considered cost effective at standard cost-effectiveness thresholds. Despite their high cost, some gene therapies have the potential to dominate the alternatives in conditions with high mortality/disability. The choice of comparator and assumptions regarding long-term effectiveness had substantial impacts on cost-effectiveness estimates and need to be carefully considered. Both the quality of inputs and the quality of reporting were highly variable.
Authors: Joshua A Roth; Sean D Sullivan; Vincent W Lin; Aasthaa Bansal; Anna G Purdum; Lynn Navale; Paul Cheng; Scott D Ramsey Journal: J Med Econ Date: 2018-10-16 Impact factor: 2.448
Authors: Salvatore Fiorenza; David S Ritchie; Scott D Ramsey; Cameron J Turtle; Joshua A Roth Journal: Bone Marrow Transplant Date: 2020-05-30 Impact factor: 5.483
Authors: Caroline Farmer; Ash Bullement; David Packman; Linda Long; Sophie Robinson; Elham Nikram; Anthony J Hatswell; G J Melendez-Torres; Louise Crathorne Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2020-12 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: Keziah Cook; Shaun P Forbes; Kelly Adamski; Janice J Ma; Anita Chawla; Louis P Garrison Journal: J Med Econ Date: 2020-02-13 Impact factor: 2.448