Sumaya Abuloha, Shu Niu, Darlene Adirika, Benjamin P Harvey, Mikael Svensson
{"title":"A Review of the Cost-Effectiveness Evidence for FDA-Approved Cell and Gene Therapies.","authors":"Sumaya Abuloha, Shu Niu, Darlene Adirika, Benjamin P Harvey, Mikael Svensson","doi":"10.1089/hum.2023.186","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":13007,"journal":{"name":"Human gene therapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human gene therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/hum.2023.186","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/4/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
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.
近年来,细胞和基因疗法创新取得了多项重大突破。然而,细胞和基因疗法往往需要高昂的前期费用,从而引发了有关患者使用、经济承受能力和长期价值的问题。本研究回顾了试图评估经 FDA 批准的细胞和基因疗法长期价值的成本效益分析研究。两名审查员独立检索了塔夫茨医学中心成本效益分析注册表,以确定 2023 年 1 月之前所有关于 FDA 批准的细胞和基因疗法的研究。采用数据提取模板,根据以每质量调整生命年(QALY)成本表示的增量成本效益比和基本建模假设总结证据,并结合模板提取是否符合《卫生经济评估综合报告标准》(CHEERS)检查表。审查确定了七种细胞和基因疗法的 26 项 CEA 研究。大约一半的基础案例成本效益结果表明,每QALY成本低于100,000-150,000美元,这在美国通常被用作合理成本效益的阈值。然而,对于同一治疗方法,不同研究的结果差异很大,有的认为非常具有成本效益,有的则认为远不具有成本效益。大多数模型都是基于随访时间相对较短的单臂试验数据,不同研究之间的长期推断不同,导致模型的成本效益结果差异很大。总之,本综述表明,尽管前期成本较高,但许多细胞和基因疗法的成本效益证据可以支持其长期价值。尽管如此,长期价值仍存在很大的不确定性,因为许多建模结果都是由临床试验数据之外的不确定推断所驱动的。
期刊介绍:
Human Gene Therapy is the premier, multidisciplinary journal covering all aspects of gene therapy. The Journal publishes in-depth coverage of DNA, RNA, and cell therapies by delivering the latest breakthroughs in research and technologies. Human Gene Therapy provides a central forum for scientific and clinical information, including ethical, legal, regulatory, social, and commercial issues, which enables the advancement and progress of therapeutic procedures leading to improved patient outcomes, and ultimately, to curing diseases.