Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 10, 2025
Tail Vein Transection Bleeding Model in Fully Anesthetized Hemophilia A Mice
Published on: September 30, 2021
Prophylactic Weekly Efanesoctocog Alfa Versus Standard-Care Factor VIII in People Living With Severe Hemophilia A : A
Satoko Ito1, Kunal C Potnis2, Jessica Preston Harvey3
1Section of Medical Oncology & Hematology, Hemophilia Treatment Center and Yale Cancer Center, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut (S.I., R.D.B.).
Background:
Prophylaxis goals for patients with severe hemophilia A encompass advancement toward the hemophilia-free mind (freedom from bleeding, pain, arthropathy, and treatment burden). Efanesoctocog alfa, the first ultra-long half-life factor VIII agent that enables once-weekly prophylaxis, shows a 77% improvement in annualized bleeding rate compared with standard-care factor VIII prophylaxis.
Objective:
To evaluate the conventional and distributional cost-effectiveness of prophylaxis with efanesoctocog alfa versus standard-care factor VIII (standard half-life and extended half-life) in the United States.
Design:
Markov model.
Data Sources:
XTEND-1 study and other published sources.
Target Population:
Patients with severe hemophilia A.
Time Horizon:
Lifetime.
Perspective:
U.S. health system and societal.
Intervention:
Prophylaxis with efanesoctocog alfa versus standard-care factor VIII.
Outcome Measures:
Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER; cost per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]) and threshold inequality aversion parameter (equity weight).
Results Of Base-Case Analysis:
Efanesoctocog alfa and standard-care factor VIII accrued 19.7 and 14.6 discounted lifetime QALYs at costs of $22.1 million and $11.2 million, respectively, with an ICER of $2.13 million per QALY. The distributional cost-effectiveness analysis (DCEA)-derived threshold equity weight was 6.9, exceeding commonly used U.S. equity standards. Results were consistent across all scenario analyses.
Results Of Sensitivity Analysis:
Only the price of efanesoctocog alfa could change the conclusion. Efanesoctocog alfa needs to be priced at less than 53% of its current price for conventional cost-effectiveness and less than 59% for distributional cost-effectiveness. Standard-care factor VIII was favored in 100% of 10 000 probabilistic iterations.
Limitation:
Benchmark equity weights (as opposed to hemophilia-specific weights) to interpret DCEA results.
Conclusion:
Prophylaxis with efanesoctocog alfa is not conventionally or distributionally cost-effective for severe hemophilia A in the United States at current pricing and equity weight thresholds.
Primary Funding Source:
National Institutes of Health; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
Related Concept Videos
01:30Anticoagulant Drugs: Low-Molecular-Weight Heparins
01:23Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...