Analysis of Costs per Responder in US Adults with Paroxysmal Nocturnal Hemoglobinuria with a Suboptimal Response to Prior Eculizumab Treatment.

IF 1.1 Q4 HEMATOLOGY Hematology Reports Pub Date : 2023-10-13 DOI:10.3390/hematolrep15040060
Jesse Fishman, Seri Anderson, Sandra E Talbird, David Dingli
{"title":"Analysis of Costs per Responder in US Adults with Paroxysmal Nocturnal Hemoglobinuria with a Suboptimal Response to Prior Eculizumab Treatment.","authors":"Jesse Fishman,&nbsp;Seri Anderson,&nbsp;Sandra E Talbird,&nbsp;David Dingli","doi":"10.3390/hematolrep15040060","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) hematologic response categories comprehensively assess complement inhibitor responses in patients with paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH). Using data from the 16-week randomized controlled period of the phase 3 PEGASUS trial (N = 80), we estimated the treatment cost per responder by the EBMT response category for pegcetacoplan and eculizumab in adults with PNH and a suboptimal response to eculizumab. Average drug costs per responder, number needed to treat, and incremental drug costs per responder were estimated using dosages administered during the trial (base case). A US payer perspective (2020 US dollars) was used. Scenario analyses were conducted for various costs, dosages, treatment durations, patient populations, and settings. In total, 30 of 41 (73%) who switched to pegcetacoplan and 2 of 39 (5%) patients who continued eculizumab had a good, major, or complete response (good-to-complete responders) at Week 16. Average weekly drug costs per good-to-complete responder were USD 15,923 with pegcetacoplan and USD 216,100 with eculizumab; average weekly drug costs per patient were USD 11,651 and USD 11,082, respectively. Average drug costs per good-to-complete responder with pegcetacoplan were similar across complement inhibitor-naïve populations and were consistently lower than with eculizumab. Switching from eculizumab to pegcetacoplan allowed more patients with a suboptimal response to attain a good-to-complete response at lower costs. These results apply to patients with a suboptimal response to prior eculizumab treatment only.</p>","PeriodicalId":12829,"journal":{"name":"Hematology Reports","volume":"15 4","pages":"578-591"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10594490/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hematology Reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/hematolrep15040060","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) hematologic response categories comprehensively assess complement inhibitor responses in patients with paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH). Using data from the 16-week randomized controlled period of the phase 3 PEGASUS trial (N = 80), we estimated the treatment cost per responder by the EBMT response category for pegcetacoplan and eculizumab in adults with PNH and a suboptimal response to eculizumab. Average drug costs per responder, number needed to treat, and incremental drug costs per responder were estimated using dosages administered during the trial (base case). A US payer perspective (2020 US dollars) was used. Scenario analyses were conducted for various costs, dosages, treatment durations, patient populations, and settings. In total, 30 of 41 (73%) who switched to pegcetacoplan and 2 of 39 (5%) patients who continued eculizumab had a good, major, or complete response (good-to-complete responders) at Week 16. Average weekly drug costs per good-to-complete responder were USD 15,923 with pegcetacoplan and USD 216,100 with eculizumab; average weekly drug costs per patient were USD 11,651 and USD 11,082, respectively. Average drug costs per good-to-complete responder with pegcetacoplan were similar across complement inhibitor-naïve populations and were consistently lower than with eculizumab. Switching from eculizumab to pegcetacoplan allowed more patients with a suboptimal response to attain a good-to-complete response at lower costs. These results apply to patients with a suboptimal response to prior eculizumab treatment only.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
美国成人发作性夜间血红蛋白尿患者对先前Eculizumab治疗反应次优的每位反应者费用分析。
欧洲血液和骨髓移植学会(EBMT)血液学反应类别综合评估阵发性夜间血红蛋白尿症(PNH)患者的补体抑制剂反应。使用3期PEGASUS试验16周随机对照期的数据(N=80),我们通过对成人PNH患者的培西他科普兰和埃库珠单抗的EBMT反应类别和对埃库珠珠单抗的次优反应来估计每个反应者的治疗成本。每个应答者的平均药物成本、需要治疗的数量和每个应答者增加的药物成本是使用试验期间给药的剂量来估计的(基本情况)。使用了美国付款人视角(2020美元)。对各种成本、剂量、治疗持续时间、患者群体和环境进行了情景分析。总的来说,在第16周,41名(73%)患者中有30名(换用培西他科普兰)和39名(5%)患者中的2名(继续使用埃库珠单抗)有良好、主要或完全的反应(良好至完全反应)。每个良好至完全应答者的平均每周药物成本为15923美元(使用培西他科普兰)和216100美元(使用埃库珠单抗);每位患者平均每周药品费用分别为11651美元和11082美元。在补体抑制剂幼稚人群中,每个良好至完全应答者的平均药物成本与培昔单抗相似,并且始终低于埃库珠单抗。从eculizumab转为pegcetacoplan可以让更多反应不理想的患者以更低的成本获得良好到完全的反应。这些结果仅适用于对先前的艾珠单抗治疗反应不理想的患者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Hematology Reports
Hematology Reports HEMATOLOGY-
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
47
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊最新文献
The Prevalence of Peripheral Erythrophagocytosis in Pediatric Immune-Mediated Hemolytic Anemia. AntiCD30-Conjugated Antibody Plus Standard BEAM as Conditioning Regimen for Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation in Systemic Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma. Sickle Cell Anemia and Inflammation: A Review of Stones and Landmarks Paving the Road in the Last 25 Years. The Many Faces of Philadelphia: A Mature T-Cell Lymphoma with Variant Philadelphia-Translocation and Duplication of the Philadelphia Chromosome. Alloantibody Identification: The Importance of Temperature, Strength Reaction and Enzymes-A Practical Approach.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1