Exploring the Cost-Effectiveness of Newborn Screening for Metachromatic Leukodystrophy (MLD) in the UK.

Metachromatic leukodystrophy (MLD) is a fatal inherited lysosomal storage disease that can be detected through newborn bloodspot screening. The feasibility of the screening assay and the clinical rationale for screening for MLD have been previously demonstrated, so the aim of this study is to determine whether the addition of screening for MLD to the routine newborn screening program in the UK is a cost-effective use of National Health Service (NHS) resources. A health economic analysis from the perspective of the NHS and Personal Social Services was developed based on a decision-tree framework for each MLD subtype using long-term outcomes derived from a previously presented partitioned survival and Markov economic model. Modelling inputs for parameters related to epidemiology, test characteristics, screening and treatment costs were based on data from three major UK specialist MLD hospitals, structured expert opinion and published literature. Lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were discounted at 1.5% to account for time preference. Uncertainty associated with the parameter inputs was explored using sensitivity analyses. This health economic analysis demonstrates that newborn screening for MLD is a cost-effective use of NHS resources using a willingness-to-pay threshold appropriate to the severity of the disease; and supports the inclusion of MLD into the routine newborn screening programme in the UK.

Hospitalization and Healthcare Resource Utilization of Omidubicel-Onlv versus Umbilical Cord Blood Transplantation for Hematologic Malignancies: Secondary Analysis from a Pivotal Phase 3 Clinical Trial.

A phase 3 trial (ClincialTrials.gov identifier NCT02730299) of omidubicel-onlv, a nicotinamide-modified allogeneic hematopoietic progenitor cell therapy manufactured from a single umbilical cord blood (UCB) unit, showed faster hematopoietic recovery, reduced rate of infections, and shorter hospital stay compared with patients randomized to standard UCB. This prospective secondary analysis of the phase 3 trial characterized resource utilization in the first 100 days post-transplantation with omidubicel-onlv compared with UCB. This analysis examined resource utilization, including hospital length of stay, hospital care setting, visits by provider type, rate of transfusions, and readmissions, among the 108 treated patients (omidubicel-onlv, n = 52; UCB, n = 56) from day 0 to day 100 post-transplantation. Demographics were generally balanced between the 2 arms, except a higher proportion of females (52% versus 37%) and older median age (40 years versus 36 years) were noted in the omidubicel-onlv arm. Compared with patients receiving UCB transplantation, patients receiving omidubicel-onlv had a shorter average total hospital length of stay (mean, 41.2 days versus 50.8 days; P = .027) in the first 100 days post-transplantation and more days alive and out of the hospital (mean, 55.8 days versus 43.7 days; P = .023). Fewer patients died in the omidubicel-onlv arm compared with the UCB arm (12% vs 16%) before day 100 post-transplantation. During primary hospitalization (ie, time from transplantation to discharge), fewer patients receiving omidubicel-onlv required intensive care unit (ICU) admission (10% versus 23%) and spent fewer days in the ICU (mean, .4 day versus 4.7 days; P = .028) and transplant unit (mean, 25.3 days versus 32.9 days; P = .022) compared with those receiving UCB. Patients receiving omidubicel-onlv required fewer outpatient consultant and nonconsultant visits and fewer platelet or other transfusions within 100 days from transplantation. Our findings suggest that faster hematopoietic recovery in omidubicel-onlv patients is associated with significantly shorter hospital stay and reduced healthcare resource use compared with UCB.

An updated cost-utility model for onasemnogene abeparvovec (Zolgensma®) in spinal muscular atrophy type 1 patients and comparison with evaluation by the Institute for Clinical and Effectiveness Review (ICER).

Background: Recent cost-utility analysis (CUA) models for onasemnogene abeparvovec (Zolgensma®, formerly AVXS-101) in spinal muscular atrophy type 1 (SMA1) differ on key assumptions and results. Objective: To compare the manufacturer's proprietary CUA model to the model published by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), and to update the manufacturer's model with long-term follow-up data and some key ICER assumptions. Study design: We updated a recent CUA evaluating value for money in cost per incremental Quality-adjusted Life Year (QALY) of onasemnogene abeparvovec versus nusinersen (Spinraza®) or best supportive care (BSC) in symptomatic SMA1 patients, and compared it to the ICER model. Setting/Perspective: USA/Commercial payer Participants: Children aged <2 years with SMA1. Interventions: Onasemnogene abeparvovec, a single-dose gene replacement therapy, versus nusinersen, an antisense oligonucleotide, versus BSC. Main outcome measure: Incremental-cost effectiveness ratio and value-based price using traditional thresholds for general medicines in the US. Results: Updated survival (undiscounted) predicted by the model was 37.60 years for onasemnogene abeparvovec compared to 12.10 years for nusinersen and 7.27 years for BSC. Updated quality-adjusted survival using ICER's utility scores and discounted at 3% were 13.33, 2.85, and 1.15 discounted QALYs for onasemnogene abeparvovec, nusinersen, and BSC, respectively. Using estimated net prices, the discounted lifetime cost/patient was $3.93 M for onasemnogene abeparvovec, $4.60 M for nusinersen, and $1.96 M for BSC. The incremental cost per QALY gained for onasemnogene abeparvovec was dominant against nusinersen and $161,648 against BSC. These results broadly align with the results of the ICER model, which predicted a cost per QALY gained of $139,000 compared with nusinersen, and $243,000 compared with BSC (assuming a placeholder price of $2 M for onasemnogene abeparvovec), differences in methodology notwithstanding. Exploratory analyses in presymptomatic patients were similar. Conclusion: This updated CUA model is similar to ICER analyses comparing onasemnogene abeparvovec with nusinersen in the symptomatic and presymptomatic SMA populations. At a list price of $2.125 M, onasemnogene abeparvovec is cost-effective compared to nusinersen for SMA1 patients treated before age 2 years. When compared to BSC, cost per QALY of onasemnogene abeparvovec is higher than commonly used thresholds for therapies in the USA ($150,000 per QALY).

Cost-effectiveness analysis of using onasemnogene abeparvocec (AVXS-101) in spinal muscular atrophy type 1 patients.

Background: Spinal muscular atrophy type 1 (SMA1) is a devastating genetic disease for which gene-replacement therapy may bring substantial survival and quality of life benefits. Objective: This study investigated the cost-effectiveness of onasemnogene abeparvovec (AVXS-101) gene-replacement therapy for SMA1. Study design: A Markov model was used to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as cost/quality-adjusted life year ($/QALY), of AVXS-101 versus nusinersen over a lifetime. Survival, healthcare costs and QALYs were estimated using natural history data for SMA patients who achieved motor milestones (sitting/walking). Health utility weights were obtained from the CHERISH trial. Setting: USA; commercial payer perspective Participants: SMA1 infants Interventions: AVXS-101 was compared to nusinersen. Main outcome measure: The primary outcome was the ICER. Results: Expected survival (undiscounted) over a lifetime predicted by the model was 37.20 life years for AVXS-101 and 9.68 for nusinersen (discounted QALYs, 15.65 and 5.29, respectively). Using a potential AVXS-101 price range ($2.5-5.0M/treatment), the average lifetime cost/patient was $4.2-6.6M for AVXS-101 and $6.3M for nusinersen. The ICER range was (-$203,072) to $31,379 per QALY gained for AVXS-101 versus nusinersen, indicating that AVXS-101 was cost-effective with prices of ≤$5M. Conclusion: Single-dose AVXS-101 was cost-effective compared to chronic nusinersen for SMA1 patients.