Optimizing the management of inherited blood disorders in a changing market: Findings from the AMCP Market Insights Program.

In this market insights program, AMCP brought together a panel of experts representing various stakeholders: national and regional health plans, integrated health care systems, employer benefits groups, clinical experts, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and patient advocacy organizations. The objectives were to gain insights into the current and evolving treatments in hemophilia, sickle cell disease, and ß-thalassemia; measure the effects of recently approved therapies on clinicians, payers, and patients; recognize emerging trends within the stop-loss market; address potential issues and obstacles related to monitoring and reporting outcomes; and identify concerns associated with both existing and emerging contracting and reimbursement models. This article aims to summarize expert perspectives on health care system challenges and strategies concerning the management of inherited blood disorders and to advance managed care professionals' understanding of their role in supporting care for these patients. The experts emphasized that when shaping coverage policies, a patient-centered approach is crucial, focusing on preserving organ function to maintain eligibility for future gene therapies among individuals with inherited blood disorders. These strategies, including benefit design modifications, specialized provider networks, and centralized mechanisms like registries, are vital for evaluating effectiveness, facilitating decision-making, and managing costs and risks associated with new and emerging treatment options for inherited blood disorders.

Challenges for gene therapy in the financial sustainability of health systems: a scoping review.

AIM: To review the available evidence about the strategies implemented or proposed for coverage or reimbursement for currently approved gene therapies. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted to analyze the evidence published during the years 2016 to 2023. The main search criteria were coverage or reimbursement of gene therapy by healthcare systems. The eligible articles were those that described or proposed a financing model used to provide coverage in the various systems around the world. RESULTS: The study identified 279 publications, and after removing duplicates and screening for eligibility, 10 were included in the study. The results show that various financing models have been proposed, including subscription-based payment models, outcome-based payment models, and amortization strategies. However, several barriers to implementing these models were identified, such as deficiencies in informatics systems for data collection, changes in laws or regulations, the lack of accessible clinical endpoints and administrative costs. CONCLUSION: This scoping review provides an overview of financing strategies for gene therapies. Gene therapies can cure rare or previously intractable diseases, but their high cost can make access difficult. Publishing experiences with these models can help evaluate their use and gather more evidence for their effectiveness.

Analysis of long-term clinical and cost impact of etranacogene dezaparvovec for the treatment of hemophilia B population in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Etranacogene dezaparvovec (EDZ), Hemgenix, is a gene therapy recently approved for people with hemophilia B (PwHB). OBJECTIVE: To estimate long-term clinical impact and cost of EDZ in the United States (US). METHODS: A decision-analytic model was developed to evaluate the long-term impact of introducing EDZ for PwHB over a 20-year time horizon. Factor IX (FIX) prophylaxis comparator was a weighted average of different FIX prophylaxis regimens based on US market share data. We compared a scenario in which EDZ is introduced in the US versus a scenario without EDZ. Clinical inputs (annualized FIX-treated bleed rate; adverse event rates) were obtained from HOPE-B phase 3 trial. EDZ durability input was sourced from an analysis predicting long-term FIX activity with EDZ. EDZ one-time price was assumed at $3.5 million. Other medical costs, including FIX prophylaxis, disease monitoring, bleed management, and adverse events were from literature. The model estimated annual and cumulative costs, treated bleeds, and joint procedures over 20 years from EDZ introduction. RESULTS: Approximately 596 PwHB were eligible for EDZ. EDZ uptake was estimated to avert 11,282 bleeds and 64 joint procedures over 20 years. Although adopting EDZ resulted in an annual excess cost over years 1-5 (mean: $53 million annually, total $265 million), annual cost savings were achieved beginning in year 6 (mean: $172 million annually; total $2.58 billion in years 6-20). The total cumulative 20-year cost savings was $2.32 billion, with cumulative cost savings beginning in year 8. CONCLUSION: Introducing EDZ to treat PwHB is expected to result in cost savings and patient benefit over 20 years. Initiating PwHB on EDZ sooner can produce greater and earlier savings and additional bleeds avoided. These results may be a conservative estimate of the full value of EDZ, as PwHB would continue to accrue savings beyond 20 years.

This analysis assessed the long-term clinical and financial impact of introducing EDZ in the United States of America for people with severe or moderately severe hemophilia B. A decision-analytic model was developed comparing a scenario with EDZ and one without EDZ over 20 years. Introducing EDZ would avert 11,292 bleeds and 64 joint procedures over 20 years and would achieve cumulative cost savings in year 8, with a total cumulative 20-year cost saving of $2.32 billion.

An Early Cost-Utility Model of mRNA-Based Therapies for the Treatment of Methylmalonic and Propionic Acidemia in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Novel messenger RNA (mRNA)-based therapies, currently in development, are emerging as a promising potential treatment modality for a broad range of life-threatening and life-limiting inherited liver diseases, including methylmalonic acidemia (MMA) and propionic acidemia (PA). However, owing in part to their complexity, they are likely to come at considerable financial cost to healthcare systems. The objective of this research was to synthesize available evidence on the costs and clinical consequences associated with MMA and PA for the purpose of exploratory economic evaluation of novel mRNA-based therapies using an early cost-utility model from the United Kingdom payer perspective. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed to simulate the costs and outcomes associated with novel mRNA therapies, compared with a combination of dietary management and organ transplantation (standard of care) among hypothetical cohorts of new-born patients with MMA and PA. Key model drivers were identified, and a price threshold analysis was performed to estimate value-based price ranges for future mRNA therapies given willingness-to-pay thresholds for orphan diseases. RESULTS: mRNA therapy was associated with an additional 5.7 and 1.3 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained per patient lifetime among patients with MMA and PA, respectively. Key drivers of cost-effectiveness were relative improvement in utility among patients who receive mRNA-based therapy and transplantation, and the cost of mRNA therapy. Assuming a willingness to pay range of £100,000-£300,000 per QALY gained, the model demonstrated mRNA therapy to be cost-effective in MMA and PA at an annual treatment cost of £70,452-£94,575 and £31,313-£36,695, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the lack of a strong evidence base in MMA and PA, this model provides a useful tool to estimate the cost-effectiveness, and inform value-based pricing, of new mRNA-based therapies. Our analyses also identified areas for research that will have the greatest value in reducing uncertainty in future health economic evaluations of such treatments.

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 of Lovotibeglogene Autotemcel (Lovo-Cel) Gene Therapy for Patients with Sickle Cell Disease and Recurrent Vaso-Occlusive Events in the United States.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Gene therapies for sickle cell disease (SCD) may offer meaningful benefits for patients and society. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of lovotibeglogene autotemcel (lovo-cel), a one-time gene therapy administered via autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, compared with common care for patients in the United States (US) with SCD aged ≥ 12 years with ≥ 4 vaso-occlusive events (VOEs) in the past 24 months. METHODS: We developed a patient-level simulation model accounting for lovo-cel and SCD-related events, complications, and mortality over a lifetime time horizon. The pivotal phase 1/2 HGB-206 clinical trial (NCT02140554) served as the basis for lovo-cel efficacy and safety. Cost, quality-of-life, and other clinical data were sourced from HGB-206 data and the literature. Analyses were conducted from US societal and third-party payer perspectives. Uncertainty was assessed through probabilistic sensitivity analysis and extensive scenario analyses. RESULTS: Patients treated with lovo-cel were predicted to survive 23.84 years longer on average (standard deviation [SD], 12.80) versus common care (life expectancy, 62.24 versus 38.40 years), with associated discounted patient quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gains of 10.20 (SD, 4.10) and direct costs avoided of $1,329,201 (SD, $1,346,446) per patient. Predicted societal benefits included discounted caregiver QALY losses avoided of 1.19 (SD, 1.38) and indirect costs avoided of $540,416 (SD, $262,353) per patient. Including lovo-cel costs ($3,282,009 [SD, $29,690] per patient) resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $191,519 and $124,051 per QALY gained from third-party payer and societal perspectives, respectively. In scenario analyses, the predicted cost-effectiveness of lovo-cel also was sensitive to baseline age and VOE frequency and to the proportion of patients achieving and maintaining complete resolution of VOEs. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis of lovo-cel gene therapy compared with common care for patients in the US with SCD with recurrent VOEs estimated meaningful improvements in survival, quality of life, and other clinical outcomes accompanied by increased overall costs for the health care system and for broader society. The predicted economic value of lovo-cel gene therapy was influenced by uncertainty in long-term clinical effects and by positive spillover effects on patient productivity and caregiver burden.

Cell and gene therapy investment: evolution and future outlook on investor perspectives.

BACKGROUND AIMS: To better understand the attitudes and behaviors of investors involved in funding cell and gene therapy (CGT) businesses, the Business Development and Finance) subcommittee of International Society for Cell and Gene Therapy, in collaboration with Truist Securities, conducted a broad survey of the investment community in late 2021. METHODS: This survey follows a similar study that this group executed in 2018, and the longitudinal comparisons between the two time periods provide insights into how investor behavior in the CGT field has evolved. RESULTS: The vast majority of investor respondents are specialist biotech investors who are primarily active in deploying capital in North America and Europe. There was a notable increase in the proportion of investors actively deploying capital in China and Japan between 2018 and 2021. The percentage of respondents' portfolios dedicated to CGT companies has also increased in this period, reflecting a noteworthy trend in the therapeutic landscape. CONCLUSIONS: Clinically significant data remain the dominant force behind investment decisions, whereas competition from other drug modalities has now emerged as the most-cited barrier to making a CGT investment, eclipsing safety concerns as the most significant barrier to investment in 2018. Concerns around manufacturing and scale-up have also increased in prominence amongst the investment community. Gene-editing technologies are attracting investors as the most compelling new CGT technology. This survey also revealed that most investors expect to increase their level of investment in allogeneic technologies relative to autologous products in the coming years.

A Review of the Cost-Effectiveness Evidence for FDA-Approved Cell and Gene Therapies.

Cell and gene therapy (CGT) innovations have provided several significant breakthroughs in recent years. However, CGTs often come with a high upfront cost, raising questions about patient access, affordability, and long-term value. This study reviewed cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) studies that have attempted to assess the long-term value of Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved CGTs. Two reviewers independently searched the Tufts Medical Center CEA Registry to identify all studies for FDA-approved CGTs, per January 2023. A data extraction template was used to summarize the evidence in terms of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio expressed as the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and essential modeling assumptions, combined with a template to extract the adherence to the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. The review identified 26 CEA studies for seven CGTs. Around half of the base-case cost-effectiveness results indicated that the cost per QALY was below $100,000-$150,000, often used as a threshold for reasonable cost-effectiveness in the United States. However, the results varied substantially across studies for the same treatment, ranging from being considered very cost-effective to far from cost-effective. Most models were based on data from single-arm trials with relatively short follow-ups, and different long-term extrapolations between studies caused large differences in the modeled cost-effectiveness results. In sum, this review showed that, despite the high upfront costs, many CGTs have cost-effectiveness evidence that can support long-term value. Nonetheless, substantial uncertainty regarding long-term value exists because so much of the modeling results are driven by uncertain extrapolations beyond the clinical trial data.

Remuneration of donors for cell and gene therapies: an update on the principles and perspective of the World Marrow Donor Association.

The cell and gene therapy (CGT) sector has witnessed significant advancement over the past decade, the inception of advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) being one of the most transformational. ATMPs treat serious medical conditions, in some cases providing curative therapy for seriously ill patients. There is interest in pivoting the ATMP development from autologous based treatments to allogenic, to offer faster and greater patient access that should ultimately reduce treatment costs. Consequently, starting material from allogenic donors is required, igniting ethical issues associated with financial gains and donor remuneration within CGT. The World Marrow Donor Association (WMDA) established the Cellular Therapy Committee to identify the role WMDA can play in safeguarding donors and patients in the CGT field. Here we review key ethical principles in relation to donating cellular material for the CGT field. We present the updated statement from WMDA on donor remuneration, which supports non-remuneration as the best way to ensure the safety and well-being of donors and patients alike. This is in line with the fundamental objective of the WMDA to maintain the health and safety of volunteer donors while ensuring high-quality stem cell products are available for all patients. We acknowledge that the CGT field is evolving at a rapid pace and there will be a need to review this position as new practices and applications come to pass.

The estimated annual financial impact of gene therapy in the United States.

Gene therapy is a new class of medical treatment that alters part of a patient's genome through the replacement, deletion, or insertion of genetic material. While still in its infancy, gene therapy has demonstrated immense potential to treat and even cure previously intractable diseases. Nevertheless, existing gene therapy prices are high, raising concerns about its affordability for U.S. payers and its availability to patients. We assess the potential financial impact of novel gene therapies by developing and implementing an original simulation model which entails the following steps: identifying the 109 late-stage gene therapy clinical trials underway before January 2020, estimating the prevalence and incidence of their corresponding diseases, applying a model of the increase in quality-adjusted life years for each therapy, and simulating the launch prices and expected spending of all available gene therapies annually. The results of our simulation suggest that annual spending on gene therapies will be approximately $20.4 billion, under conservative assumptions. We decompose the estimated spending by treated age group as a proxy for insurance type, finding that approximately one-half of annual spending will on the use of gene therapies to treat non-Medicare-insured adults and children. We conduct multiple sensitivity analyses regarding our assumptions and model parameters. We conclude by considering the tradeoffs of different payment methods and policies that intend to ensure patient access to the expected benefits of gene therapy.

Coverage of genetic therapies for spinal muscular atrophy across fee-for-service Medicaid programs.

BACKGROUND: Genetic therapies are a promising treatment for children born with spinal muscular atrophy (SMA); however, their high price tags can evoke coverage restrictions. OBJECTIVE: To assess variation in coverage guidelines across fee-for-service state Medicaid programs for 2 novel genetic therapies, nusinersen and onasemnogene abeparvovec, that treat SMA. We also assessed the association of these coverage guidelines with use of the 2 genetic therapies. METHODS: We evaluated fee-for-service Medicaid coverage policies for nusinersen and onasemnogene abeparvovec from publicly available websites for the period February 2020-March 2020. We then documented areas of agreement and disagreement across 4 key coverage domains. We used 2018 and 2019 state Medicaid drug utilization data to calculate the use of nusinersen across Medicaid programs and assessed that use against the restrictiveness of the coverage guidelines. RESULTS: We identified 19 state Medicaid coverage guidelines for nusinersen. Most states agreed on diagnostics requirements; however, there were disagreements based on ventilator status. We identified 17 state Medicaid coverage guidelines for onasemnogene abeparvovec. There was more discordance in these coverage guidelines compared with nusinersen, notably in domains of SMN2 gene count and ventilator status. When comparing utilization of nusinersen with coverage restrictions, we found that the more restrictive states had considerably lower utilization of nusinersen. CONCLUSIONS: There was significant variation across fee-for-service Medicaid coverage policies for nusinersen and onasemnogene abeparvovec. Although states can impose individual coverage guidelines for each drug, we presented policy options that could reduce variation and potentially decrease the cost burden of these drugs. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Arnold Ventures. The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Hemophilia Gene Therapy Value Assessment: Methodological Challenges and Recommendations.

Gene therapy for hemophilia is designed to produce health gains for patients over many years. Rewarding that value creation on the basis of a one-time treatment implies a large upfront cost. This cost can only be justified by long-term health benefits and being cost-effective compared with conventional treatments. Yet, uncertainties about the long-term benefits make it challenging to assess clinical and economic value of gene therapies at launch. We identify and discuss key methodological challenges in assessing the value of gene therapy for hemophilia, including the immaturity of evidence on the durability of benefits, lack of definition and valuation of cure for chronic diseases, absence of randomized controlled trials, limitations of traditional quality of life measures in hemophilia, approach for qualifying cost-savings compared with current treatments, and choice of perspective. The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review has developed a framework for assessing single or short-term therapies (ICER-SST) and has applied it in hemophilia. After reviewing this framework and its application, we recommend the following when assessing the value of hemophilia gene therapies: (1) leveraging expert clinical opinion to justify assumptions on the durability of benefits; (2) using external synthetic controls and lead-in, self-controlled trials to assess comparative effectiveness; (3) addressing limitations of traditional quality of life measures through the use of modified utility collection approaches; (4) adjusting cost offsets from gene therapies with caution; (5) considering outcome-based contracting to address uncertainties about prices and long-term outcomes; and (6) presenting societal and healthcare system perspectives in parallel.