Abstract:Background: In 2022-2023, the US Food and Drug Administration approved 2 novel gene therapies, valoctocogene roxaparvovec and etranacogene dezaparavovec, for hemophilia A and B, respectively. These one-time-administered gene therapies have been marketed at prices that create financial challenges for payers and patients. Understanding the magnitude and uncertainties around the long-term value of these therapies and how they can potentially relate to managed care practices is of high interest to the payer and patient community. Objective: To conduct a systematic review of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) studies to assess (1) the long-term value of valoctocogene roxaparvovec and etranacogene dezaparavovec and (2) the relevance and validity of the underlying data and assumptions used in the CEA models and discuss how they relate to the challenges identified for CEAs of gene therapies. Methods: A systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies of novel hemophilia A and B gene therapy was conducted. PubMed and Embase were searched for published studies from inception to January 12, 2024. Original research articles published in English that conducted a CEA on gene therapy treatments for hemophilia A and B, with a comparison of incremental costs and health effects, were considered. Critical appraisal of the quality of reporting and the underlying modeling assumptions were conducted to assess the relevance and validity of the results. Results: Two hundred thirty-eight studies were identified, of which 4 met the inclusion criteria. Three studies were conducted from a US health care perspective and 1 from a Dutch societal perspective. Despite the high upfront costs of the gene therapies, all included studies' (3 hemophilia A and 1 hemophilia B) modeled results showed that gene therapies had lower overall costs and better health outcomes compared with factor concentrate replacement therapies and emicizumab. The results were driven by the assumption that gene therapies will have a durable effect of at least 10 years and offset the high cost of the current standard of care. The modeled health improvements varied substantially across studies, showing that the long-term value is sensitive to varying clinical and economic assumptions. Conclusions: The novel hemophilia gene therapy treatments can potentially be a cost-effective use of treatment resources if the treatment effects are durable over time. To reduce the risk for payers while still facilitating patient access, outcomes-based agreements similar to what has recently been proposed by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services for sickle-cell therapies are well supported.

Evaluating the Cost-Effectiveness of Etranacogene Dezaparvovec Gene Therapy for Hemophilia B Treatment in the USA

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

The impact of capping health system cost savings on the projected cost-effectiveness of etranacogene dezaparvovec compared with factor IX prophylaxis for the treatment of hemophilia B

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Etranacogene Dezaparvovec Versus Extended Half-Life Prophylaxis for Moderate-to-Severe Haemophilia B in Germany

A systematic review of cost-effectiveness analyses of gene therapy for hemophilia type A and B

Value contribution of etranacogene dezaparvovec gene therapy in moderately severe and severe haemophilia B through multi‐criteria decision analysis

Assessing the potential cost-effectiveness of a gene therapy for the treatment of hemophilia A

Hemophilia B and gene therapy: a new chapter with etranacogene dezaparvovec

Hemophilia Gene Therapy Value Assessment: Methodological Challenges and Recommendations.

Effect of etranacogene dezaparvovec on quality of life for severe and moderately severe haemophilia B participants: Results from the phase III HOPE‐B trial 2 years after gene therapy

Gene Therapy with Fidanacogene Elaparvovec in Adults with Hemophilia B

Estimated Spending on Beremagene Geperpavec for Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa

Gene Therapy Versus Common Care for Eligible Individuals With Sickle Cell Disease in the United States

Using Real-World Data to Inform Value-Based Contracts for Cell and Gene Therapies in Medicaid

Invasive procedures and surgery following etranacogene dezaparvovec gene therapy in people with hemophilia B

Cost-effectiveness of prophylaxis with recombinant versus plasma-derived VWF in severe von Willebrand disease in the US

Characteristics of BAY 2599023 in the Current Treatment Landscape of Hemophilia A Gene Therapy

Highly Branched Poly(β-Amino Ester)s for Gene Delivery in Hereditary Skin Diseases

Adeno-Associated Virus-based Gene Therapy for Hemophilia A and B: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Efficacy and safety of adeno-associated virus-based clinical gene therapy for hemophilia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab therapy in the care of patients with hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia