A systematic review on the appropriate discounting rates for the economic evaluation of gene therapies: whether a specific approach is justified to tackle the challenges?

OBJECTIVES: Discounting the cost and effect for health intervention is a controversial topic over the last two decades. In particular, the cost-effectiveness of gene therapies is especially sensitive to the discount rate because of the substantial delay between the upfront cost incurred and long-lasing clinical benefits received. This study aims to investigate the influence of employing alternative discount rates on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of gene therapies. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted to include health economic evaluations of gene therapies that were published until April 2023. RESULTS: Sensitivity or scenario analysis indicated that discount rate represented one of the most influential factors for the ICERs of gene therapies. Discount rate for cost and benefit was positively correlated with the cost-effectiveness of gene therapies, that is, a lower discount rate significantly improves the ICERs. The alternative discount rate employed in some cases could be powerful to alter the conclusion on whether gene therapies are cost-effective and acceptable for reimbursement. CONCLUSIONS: Although discount rate will have substantial influence on the ICERs of gene therapies, there lacks solid evidence to justify a different discounting rule for gene therapies. However, it is proposed that the discount rate in the reference case should be updated to reflect the real-time preference, which in turn will affect the ICERs and reimbursement of gene therapies more profoundly than conventional therapies.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Innovative Therapies for Patients with Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease.

OBJECTIVE: Currently there are no disease-specific approved therapies for non-alcoholic fatty liver (NAFL) and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH); however, several treatments are under development. This study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of hypothetical innovative therapies compared with lifestyle intervention alone and combined with pioglitazone, and assess the health economic consequences of their future availability for patients. METHODS: A Markov cohort model was developed, considering fourteen disease health states and one absorbing state representing death. Transition probabilities, costs, utilities, and treatment efficacy were based on published data and assumptions. Four treatment strategies were considered, including two existing therapies (lifestyle intervention, small molecule treatment) and two hypothetical interventions (biological and curative therapy). The analysis was performed from the US third-party payer perspective. RESULTS: The curative treatment with the assumed efficacy of 70% of patients cured and assumed price of $500,000 was the only cost-effective option. Although it incurred higher costs (a difference of $188,771 vs. lifestyle intervention and $197,702 vs. small molecule), it generated more QALYs (a difference of 1.58 and 1.38 QALYs, respectively), resulting in an ICER below the willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY. The sensitivity analyses showed that the results were robust to variations in model parameters. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlighted the potential benefits of therapies aimed at curing a disease rather than stopping its progression. Nonetheless, each of the analyzed therapies could be cost-effective compared with lifestyle intervention at a relatively high price.

Cost-Effectiveness of Recombinant Factor IX Fc Prophylaxis and Recombinant Factor IX On-Demand Treatment in Patients with Haemophilia B Without Inhibitors.

INTRODUCTION: Recombinant factor IX (rFIX) and recombinant FIX Fc fusion protein (rFIXFc) are standard half-life and extended half-life FIX replacement therapies, respectively, and represent established treatment options indicated for adults and children with haemophilia B. These FIX replacement therapies can be administered as prophylaxis (to prevent bleeding) or 'on-demand' (to stop bleeding). This analysis aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of once-weekly prophylaxis with rFIXFc versus on-demand treatment with rFIX in patients with haemophilia B without inhibitors in the Italian healthcare setting. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to assess a hypothetical cohort of adolescent or adult male patients (≥ 12 years) with haemophilia B (FIX level of ≤ 2 IU/dL) without inhibitors. Model inputs were derived from the pivotal phase 3 clinical studies for rFIXFc and rFIX, published literature and assumptions when published data were unavailable. The model employed a lifelong time horizon with 6-monthly transitions between health states, and it estimated total costs, total quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), number of bleeds, number of surgeries and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. RESULTS: rFIXFc prophylaxis was associated with lower total costs per patient (€5,308,625 versus €6,564,510) and greater total QALYs per patient (15.936 versus 11.943) compared with rFIX on-demand; rFIXFc prophylaxis was therefore the dominant treatment strategy. The model also demonstrated that rFIXFc prophylaxis was associated with fewer incremental bleeds (- 682.29) and surgeries (- 0.39) compared with rFIX on-demand. CONCLUSIONS: rFIXFc prophylaxis provides improved health outcomes and lower costs, and represents a cost-effective treatment option compared with rFIX on-demand for adolescent and adult male patients with haemophilia B. This comparative assessment of cost-effectiveness should help to inform both clinicians and healthcare policy makers when making treatment decisions for patients with haemophilia B.

Cost-effectiveness of finerenone in chronic kidney disease associated with type 2 diabetes in The Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: In the Netherlands, more than one million patients have type 2 diabetes (T2D), and approximately 36% of these patients have chronic kidney disease (CKD). Yearly medical costs related to T2D and CKD account for approximately €1.3 billion and €805 million, respectively. The FIDELIO-DKD trial showed that the addition of finerenone to the standard of care (SoC) lowers the risk of CKD progression and cardiovascular (CV) events in patients with CKD stages 2-4 associated with T2D. This study investigates the cost-effectiveness of adding finerenone to the SoC of patients with advanced CKD and T2D compared to SoC monotherapy. METHODS: The validated FINE-CKD model is a Markov cohort model which simulates the disease pathway of patients over a lifetime time horizon. The model was adapted to reflect the Dutch societal perspective. The model estimated the incremental costs, utilities, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed to assess the effect of parameter uncertainty on model robustness. RESULTS: When used in conjunction with SoC, finerenone extended time free of CV events and renal replacement therapy by respectively 0.30 and 0.31 life years compared to SoC alone, resulting in an extension of 0.20 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The reduction in renal and CV events led to a €6136 decrease in total lifetime costs per patient compared to SoC alone, establishing finerenone as a dominant treatment option. Finerenone in addition to SoC had a 83% probability of being dominant and a 93% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €20,000. CONCLUSION: By reducing the risk of CKD progression and CV events, finerenone saves costs to society while gaining QALYs in patients with T2D and advanced CKD in the Netherlands.

The cost-effectiveness of pegcetacoplan in complement treatment-naïve adults with paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria in the USA.

Aim: Paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH) is a rare blood disorder characterized by hemolytic anemia, bone marrow failure and thrombosis, and is associated with high healthcare burden. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of pegcetacoplan, a proximal complement-3 inhibitor (C3i), compared with the C5i, eculizumab and ravulizumab, in complement treatment-naive adults with PNH, from the US healthcare payer perspective. Materials & methods: A de novo cost-effectiveness model based on a Markov cohort structure evaluated lifetime (55-year) PNH costs and outcomes. The 6-month cycles of the model reflected the follow-up period of PRINCE (NCT04085601), an open-label trial of pegcetacoplan compared with eculizumab in C5i-naive patients. Data from PRINCE informed the clinical, safety and health-related quality of life outcomes in the model. Results: Pegcetacoplan was associated with lifetime cost savings of USD1,176,808 and USD213,062 relative to eculizumab and ravulizumab, respectively (largely attributed to reduced drug costs and blood transfusions), and additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of 0.25 and 0.24. Conclusion: In patients with PNH who are treatment-naive, the base-case cost-effectiveness analysis, scenario analysis and sensitivity analysis showed both lifetime cost savings and increased QALYs associated with pegcetacoplan compared with eculizumab or ravulizumab in the USA.

The impact of amortization of gene therapies funding on the results and conclusions of CEMs and BIMs.

BACKGROUND: Gene replacement therapy (GRT) is a treatment method used to combat or prevent various diseases. Its high one-off cost constitutes a major obstacle for successful market access. This paper aims to assess and discuss the applicability of amortization in models, such as cost-effectiveness models (CEMs) and budget impact models (BIMs) informing HTA recommendations and reimbursement decisions. METHODS AND FINDINGS: A hypothetical CEA and BIA were considered. The objective was to compare the GRT with and without amortization. A straight-line amortization model was used. The CEM and BIM were considered and assessed based on two set of scenarios: considering different amortization duration or different discounting rate. The impact of amortization against the total cost of gene therapy was assessed for all the scenarios. The cost difference between GRT with and without amortization in relation to its total cost was -$58,855, thus amortization does not have a significant impact on the results and conclusions of the cost-effectiveness analysis. For BIM in the base case, amortization had no impact on the results. CONCLUSION: Amortization has negligible impact on the results of CEM and total BIM and no impact on the conclusions from the model. One exception is the budget impact in case of an amortization period longer than the time horizon of BIM, where a half of the GRT price is moved beyond the model time horizon. Amortization has a distinguishing effect from an accounting perspective, but it does not have any implication for payers.

Cost-effectiveness of recombinant factor VIII Fc versus emicizumab for prophylaxis in adults and adolescents with haemophilia A without inhibitors in the UK.

INTRODUCTION: The economic and clinical burden of haemophilia A is high. Primary prophylaxis with factor VIII replacement therapy is the recognised standard of care, but the emergence of non-factor therapies, such as emicizumab, is extending treatment options for people with haemophilia A. AIM: There are currently no direct comparisons of efficacy or cost between recombinant factor FVIII Fc-fusion protein efmoroctocog alfa (a recombinant factor FVIII Fc-fusion protein referred to herein as rFVIIIFc) and emicizumab; therefore, a cost-effectiveness model was developed to compare prophylactic treatment with rFVIIIFc versus emicizumab in patients with haemophilia A without inhibitors in the UK. METHODS: The cost-effectiveness model was based on a matching-adjusted indirect comparison and included male patients, aged ≥12 years, with haemophilia A without inhibitors. The model was designed as a Markov process with a flexible lifelong time horizon, and cost-effectiveness was presented as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Base-case analysis and sensitivity analyses (including scenario analyses, one-way deterministic sensitivity analysis [DSA] and probability sensitivity analysis [PSA]) were performed using the following treatment strategies: individualised prophylaxis with rFVIIIFc and prophylaxis with emicizumab administered once weekly (scenario analyses used regimens of once every 2 weeks or once every 4 weeks). RESULTS: Base-case analysis, DSA and PSA indicated that, compared with emicizumab administered once weekly, rFVIIIFc individualised prophylaxis was the dominant treatment strategy, with lower costs, a greater number of quality-adjusted life years, and a lower number of bleeds. CONCLUSIONS: rFVIIIFc has proven efficacy and is cost-effective compared with emicizumab, providing clinicians with a viable treatment option to improve the health outcomes for adults and adolescents with haemophilia A in the UK.

Validation of the FINE-CKD model for future health technology assessments for finerenone in patients with chronic kidney disease and type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: The FINE-CKD model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of finerenone in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and type 2 diabetes (T2D). OBJECTIVE: To perform internal and external validation by comparing the model estimates with trial results and outcomes from other models. METHODS: Incidence rates from trials were compared with the model predictions. Statistical tests were then performed to assess whether modeled event rates aligned with trial observations. A cross-validation was also performed using the online version of the SHARP CKD-Cardiovascular Disease (SHARP CKD-CVD) model, with population characteristics from the finerenone trials analyzed. Where no finerenone data were available, the default SHARP CKD-CVD values were used. Comparison of the results considered the ranges from both models. RESULTS: The outcomes of the FINE-CKD model reflect the event rates observed in the trials. Based on the results of the statistical tests, the hypothesis of no difference between observed and modeled events cannot be rejected for any of the outcomes. The results of the FINE-CKD model are within the ranges from the SHARP CKD-CVD model. Disease progressions align across the models; however, incident kidney failure events in the SHARP CKD-CVD model were higher. This can be explained by simulation of more severely affected patients in the SHARP CKD-CVD model. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that the FINE-CKD model adequately reflects the clinical data and provides reliable extrapolation relative to the existing predictive tools while also being conservative in its approach.

Cost-minimization analysis of recombinant factor VIII Fc versus emicizumab for treating patients with hemophilia A without inhibitors in Europe.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: A cost-minimization model was developed to compare recombinant factor VIII Fc (rFVIIIFc) and emicizumab as prophylaxis for hemophilia A without inhibitors. METHODS: The model was based on 100 patients from the healthcare payer perspective in the UK, France, Italy, Spain, and Germany (5-year time horizon). Costs included: drug acquisition; emicizumab wastage by bodyweight (manufacturer's dosing recommendations); and additional FVIII for breakthrough bleeds. Scenario analyses (UK only): reduced emicizumab dosing frequency; and emicizumab maximum wastage. RESULTS: Total incremental 5-year savings for rFVIIIFc rather than emicizumab use range from €89,320,131 to €149,990,408 in adolescents/adults (≥12 years) and €173,417,486 to €253,240,465 in children (<12 years). Emicizumab wastage accounts for 6% of its total cost in adolescents/adults and 26% in children. Reducing the emicizumab dosing frequency reduces the incremental cost savings with rFVIIIFc, but these remain substantial (adolescents/adults, >€92 million; children >€32 million). Maximum emicizumab wastage increases by 86% and 106%, respectively, increasing the incremental cost savings with rFVIIIFc to €125,352,125 and €105,872,727, respectively. CONCLUSION: Based on cost-minimization modeling, rFVIIIFc use for hemophilia A prophylaxis in patients without inhibitors is associated with substantial cost savings in Europe, reflecting not only higher acquisition costs of emicizumab, but also other costs including wastage related to available vial sizes.

The cost-effectiveness, of pegcetacoplan compared with ravulizumab for the treatment of paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria, in a UK setting.

Aim: Paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH) is a rare blood disorder characterized by hemolytic anemia, bone marrow failure and thrombosis. We evaluated, the cost-effectiveness of pegcetacoplan, a novel proximal C3 inhibitor, versus ravulizumab in patients with PNH and hemoglobin levels <10.5 g/dl despite eculizumab treatment in the UK healthcare and social services setting. Materials & methods: A Markov cohort framework model, based on the data from the pivotal trial of pegcetacoplan (PEGASUS/NCT03500549), evaluated lifetime costs and outcomes. Patients transitioned through 3 PNH hemoglobin level/red blood cell transfusion health states. Results: Pegcetacoplan provides lower lifetime costs/greater quality-adjusted life years (£6,409,166/14.694QALYs, respectively) versus ravulizumab (£6,660,676/12.942QALYs). Conclusion: Pegcetacoplan is associated with enhanced anemia control, greater QALYs and reduced healthcare costs versus ravulizumab in the UK healthcare and social services setting.

Gene Therapy Evidence Generation and Economic Analysis: Pragmatic Considerations to Facilitate Fit-for-Purpose Health Technology Assessment.

Gene therapies (GTs) are considered to be a paradigm-shifting class of treatments with the potential to treat previously incurable diseases or those with significant unmet treatment needs. However, considerable challenges remain in their health technology assessment (HTA), mainly stemming from the inability to perform robust clinical trials to convince decision-makers to pay the high prices for the potential long-term treatment benefits provided. This article aims to review the recommendations that have been published for evidence generation and economic analysis for GTs against the feasibility of their implementation within current HTA decision analysis frameworks. After reviewing the systematically identified literature, we found that questions remain on the appropriateness of GT evidence generation, considering that additional, broader values brought by GTs seem insufficiently incorporated within proposed analytic methods. In cases where innovative methods are proposed, HTA organizations remain highly conservative and resistant to change their reference case and decision analysis framework. Such resistances are largely attributed to the substantial evidence uncertainty, resource-consuming administration process, and the absence of consensus on the optimized methodology to balance all the advantages and potential pitfalls of GTs.

Challenges in the market access of regenerative medicines, and implications for manufacturers and decision-makers: a systematic review.

Aim: Regenerative medicines (RMs) are expected to transform the treatment paradigm of rare, life-threatening diseases, while substantial challenges impede its market access. This study aimed to present these challenges. Materials & methods: Publications identified in the Medline and Embase databases until December 2020 were included. Results: Uncertainties around the relative effectiveness and long-term benefits of RMs are most scrutinized. A new reference case for RMs is questionable, but examining impacts of study perspective, time horizon, discount rate and extrapolation methods on estimates is advised. Establishing reasonable prices of RMs requires increased transparency in the development costs and better values measurements. Outcome-based payments require considerable investments and potential legislative adjustments. Conclusion: Greater flexibility for health technology assessment and economic analyses of RMs is necessary. This comprehensive review may prompt more multi-stakeholder conversations to discuss the optimized strategy for value assessment, pricing and payment in order to accelerate the market access of RMs.

Plain language summary Regenerative medicines (RMs) potentially offered new hopes for severe diseases without effective treatments. However, substantial challenges must be overcome to make them available for patients. This systematic review aims to present these challenges. Publications identified in the Medline and Embase databases until December 2020 were included. The limited clinical evidence causes the biggest uncertainties around the relative effectiveness and long-term benefits of RMs. The current methodology for economic analysis of RMs is questionable because broader, societal values related to RMs are not sufficiently captured. The high price of RMs seems unjustified and should be lowered by balancing the development costs and values delivered. Outcome-based payments could be employed to address the long-term financial challenges, but they will require investments to implement it. More flexibility for health technology assessment and economic analysis of RMs is necessary to safeguard the accelerated patient access.

FINE-CKD model to evaluate economic value of finerenone in patients with chronic kidney disease and type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a progressive and irreversible disease often associated with type 2 diabetes (T2D). CKD is associated with an elevated risk of cardiovascular (CV) events, increased mortality, and diminished quality of life. Finerenone is a new treatment for patients with CKD and T2D that delays CKD progression and reduces CV complications. OBJECTIVE: To describe the approach and structure of a costeffectiveness model for finerenone for patients with CKD and T2D and compare it with existing economic models in CKD. METHODS: A de novo cost-effectiveness model (FINE-CKD model), reflective of FIDELIO-DKD results, was developed for finerenone. The FINE-CKD model was designed and implemented in accordance with published guidance on modeling and was developed with input from economic and clinical experts. The final model approach was evaluated against existing modeling structures in CKD identified through a systematic literature review. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The FINE-CKD model structure follows recommended modeling guidelines and has been designed in accordance with the best practices of modeling in CKD, while also incorporating important features of the FIDELIO-DKD design and results. The approach is consistent with the published literature, ensuring transparency and minimizing uncertainty that can arise from unnecessary complexity. The FINE-CKD model allows for reliable assessment of benefits and costs related to the use of finerenone in patients with CKD and T2D, and it is a reliable assessment of cost-effectiveness.

An overview of health technology assessments of gene therapies with the focus on cost-effectiveness models.

BACKGROUND: Gene therapies can treat, prevent, or cure a disease by changing the expression of a person's genes. They are an innovative strategy for treating genetic disorders; however, they are still emerging on the market access and in the healthcare system. Health technology assessment (HTA) agencies have not yet elaborated any standardised approach for assessing gene therapies; therefore, significant differences can be seen during HTAs carried out in various countries. In this review, we focused on submitted economic models of gene therapies approved for use by the US FDA and EMA with the aim to provide a comprehensive summary of how selected HTA bodies assessed the cost-effectiveness of gene therapies. An additional objective was to examine and discuss differences in the methods used in economic models across countries and drugs. METHODS: We identified economic models of gene therapies from six countries (NICE, IQWiG, SMC, HAS, CADTH, ICER) and focused on nine agents (Glybera, Imlygic, Strimvelis, Yescarta, Kymriah, Luxturna, Zynteglo, Zolgensma, Tecartus). Details of cost-utility evaluations and budget impact models were reviewed and extracted. RESULTS: Overall, 983 publications were identified, and 17 studies were included for the analysis. Reviewed evaluations of gene therapies differed in terms of the study perspective, discounting, extrapolation of outcomes based on limited and immature data, time horizon, and adequate estimation of benefits in terms of quality-adjusted life-years. Methods of economic evaluations were in line with the current recommendations; however, long-term follow-up studies are still missing. CONCLUSIONS: Discrepancies in an economic evaluation of gene therapies between different HTA bodies are rooted in a lack of general assessment frameworks specific to gene therapies. Although challenges were resolved by adjustments to the currently used value assessment framework, new methodological approaches would be useful. In addition, to improve the methods and quality of an evaluation, further research would be valuable.

Considering potential solutions for limitations and challenges in the health economic evaluation of gene therapies.

INTRODUCTION: The limited evidence in the clinical trials of gene therapies (GTs) posed substantial challenges for a reliable health technology assessment (HTA). This paper provides insights into the relationship between the background of diseases and the health economics assessment of GTs.Areas covered: The impacts of differentiated severity and unmet needs of genetic diseases, on the economic analysis of GTs, were discussed.Expert opinion: GTs offer a potential cure or significant clinical improvement, while limitations in clinical evidence constitute major obstacles for a robust assessment of clinical effectiveness and economic outcomes. This uncertainty may be balanced by the severity of the targeted condition and the associated unmet needs, thus leading to a relatively higher acceptance for GTs. Overtime, HTA agencies will become more demanding on comprehensive evidence of long-term effectiveness. With a growing number of GTs on the horizon, to what extent the unmet needs of previously devastating diseases will be fulfilled remain unclear. Nonetheless, comparative studies, either with a historical control group or existing treatments, will be necessary to demonstrate the additional benefits associated with GTs.

Efficacy and Safety of Avatrombopag in Patients with Chronic Immune Thrombocytopenia: A Systematic Literature Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: A network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to assess the efficacy and safety of avatrombopag, relative to eltrombopag, romiplostim, and fostamatinib, for patients with chronic immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) not responding adequately to corticosteroids. METHODS: A systematic search of publication and clinical trial databases was conducted to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. Data from eligible studies were extracted and analyzed in a Bayesian framework using relative effect sizes vs placebo. Outcomes included durable platelet response; need for rescue therapy; reduction in use of concomitant ITP medication; incidence of any or World Health Organization (WHO) grade 2-4 bleeding events, and any adverse events. Results were reported as odds ratios or incidence rate ratios (IRR) with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). RESULTS: The NMA included seven phase 3 RCTs. Compared with placebo, avatrombopag was associated with statistically significant improvements in durable platelet response, reduction in use of concomitant ITP medication, and incidence of any bleeding events. Statistically significant differences vs placebo were also observed for durable platelet response and need for rescue therapy (eltrombopag, romiplostim, and fostamatinib); reduction in use of concomitant ITP medication (eltrombopag and romiplostim); incidence of any bleeding events (fostamatinib); and incidence of WHO grade 2-4 bleeding events (romiplostim and fostamatinib). No statistically significant differences were observed for any adverse events. Avatrombopag was associated with a statistically significant lower incidence of any bleeding events vs eltrombopag (IRR 0.38 [95% CrI 0.19, 0.75]) and romiplostim (IRR 0.38 [95% Crl 0.17, 0.86]); no other between-treatment differences were observed. CONCLUSION: In this NMA, avatrombopag significantly increased the chance of achieving durable platelet response and reducing the use of concomitant ITP medication vs placebo, and significantly reduced the incidence of any bleeding events compared with placebo, eltrombopag, and romiplostim. The study aims to help guide clinicians managing patients with chronic ITP and insufficient response to previous treatment.

Cost-effectiveness of fluocinolone acetonide implant (ILUVIEN®) in UK patients with chronic diabetic macular oedema considered insufficiently responsive to available therapies.

BACKGROUND: Diabetic macular oedema (DMO) may lead to visual loss and blindness. Several pharmacological treatments are available on the National Health Service (NHS) to United Kingdom patients affected by this condition, including intravitreal vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors (anti-VEGFs) and two types of intravitreal steroid implants, releasing dexamethasone or fluocinolone acetonide (FAc). This study aimed to assess the value for money (cost-effectiveness) of the FAc 0.2 µg/day implant (ILUVIEN®) in patients with chronic DMO considered insufficiently responsive to other therapies. METHODS: We developed a Markov model with a 15-year time horizon to estimate the impact of changes in best-corrected visual acuity in DMO patients on costs and quality-adjusted life years. The model considered both eyes, designated as the "study eye", defined at model entry as phakic with an ongoing cataract formation or pseudophakic, and the "fellow eye". The model compared the FAc 0.2 µg/day implant with a 700 µg dexamethasone implant (pseudophakic patients only) or with usual care, defined as a mixture of laser photocoagulation and anti-VEGFs (phakic and pseudophakic patients). Costs were estimated from the perspective of the NHS and Personal Social Services; full NHS prices were used for drugs. RESULTS: In patients who were pseudophakic at baseline, at 36 months, the FAc implant provided an additional gain of 4.01 and 3.64 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters compared with usual care and the dexamethasone implant, respectively. Over the 15-year time horizon, this translated into 0.185 additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at an extra cost of £3066 compared with usual care, and 0.126 additional QALYs at an extra cost of £1777 compared with dexamethasone. Thus, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were £16,609 and £14,070 per QALY gained vs. usual care and dexamethasone, respectively. In patients who were phakic at baseline, the FAc 0.2 µg/day implant provided an additional gain of 2.96 ETDRS letters at 36 months compared with usual care, which, over 15 years, corresponded to 0.11 additional QALYs at an extra cost of £3170, resulting in an ICER of £28,751 per QALY gained. CONCLUSION: The FAc 0.2 µg/day implant provided good value for money compared with other established treatments, especially in pseudophakic patients.

Oncology from an HTA and Health Economic Perspective.

In this chapter, we will present and discuss the challenges of assessing oncology products from a health economic perspective. We will provide a brief introduction on the need for economic evaluation in health care and focus on cost-effectiveness and comparative aspects of the evaluation of oncology products, which are of paramount interest to HTA decision-making bodies using economic evaluation in their decision-making framework. As the burden of oncology is well-documented, we do not discuss it in detail here. Before we address the specific issue of oncology, we will briefly define the critical aspects of HTA assessment and also define what a cost-effectiveness analysis is and why economic modelling is the most appropriate tool to assess the cost-effectiveness of oncology products. We will touch upon the prices of oncology drugs and the questions that high prices raise regarding funding and availability. We then present an overview of the general structure of an oncology cost-effectiveness model. Usually, this is quite simple, representing response, progression, advanced-stage disease and death. Despite the relative simplicity of these models, some issues may render the evaluation more complex; we will touch upon these in this chapter: Issue with clinical inputs due to the design of randomised clinical trials (e.g. cross-over designs involving a treatment switch) Need for survival extrapolation and limitations of current parametric models Rare conditions with limited economic and comparative evidence available High pace of clinical development Finally, we will conclude with a discussion of the uncertainty around the evaluation of oncology products and the major evolution expected in health economics in oncology.