Assessing health plan payer's budget impact of etranacogene dezaparvovec for the treatment of hemophilia B in the United States

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Etranacogene dezaparvovec is a recently approved gene therapy for people with hemophilia B (PwHB). Current standard of care is prophylaxis with factor IX (FIX) to prevent bleeding. Etranacogene dezaparvovec increases blood FIX levels such that FIX prophylaxis could be eliminated.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the budgetary impact of etranacogene dezaparvovec adoption and utilization in a commercial health plan of the United States.

METHODS: A budget impact model was developed to evaluate the introduction of etranacogene dezaparvovec to treat severe or moderately severe hemophilia B. The model considered a hypothetical 1-million-member plan over a 5-year horizon. FIX therapy prophylaxis use was estimated based on a weighted average of relevant brands using US market share data. A scenario of etranacogene dezaparvovec adoption/utilization was compared with one without etranacogene dezaparvovec utilization. Two etranacogene dezaparvovec uptake (market share growth) analyses were performed: one with gradual uptake and alternatively assuming all eligible PwHB received etranacogene dezaparvovec in year 1. The one-time cost of etranacogene dezaparvovec was assumed to be $3.5 million. Other costs (FIX prophylaxis, disease monitoring, bleed management, and adverse events) were estimated from published literature. All costs were in 2022 US dollars. Bleed and adverse event rates were sourced from the HOPE-B trial comparing etranacogene dezaparvovec to previous FIX therapy prophylaxis. The model estimated annual and per-member per-month costs over 5 years. Secondary analyses were performed considering a 10-year horizon.

RESULTS: In the 1-million-member health plan, an estimated 1.8 PwHB were eligible for treatment with etranacogene dezaparvovec. Gradual uptake of etranacogene dezaparvovec resulted in cumulative 5-year budget impact of $848,509 compared with a scenario without etranacogene dezaparvovec. In years 1-5, the incremental annual and per-member per-month costs ranged from $79,824 to $271,435 and from $0.007 to $0.023, respectively. In the alternative uptake analysis, etranacogene dezaparvovec became cost saving annually beginning in year 2 and cumulatively beginning in year 5, for a 5-year savings of $754,844. Secondary analyses over 10 years found both uptake analyses cost saving. Other scenarios considered did not affect results substantially.

CONCLUSIONS: Introducing etranacogene dezaparvovec as treatment for PwHB would have a modest budget increase within 5 years after treatment but may become cost saving if all eligible PwHB were treated in year 1. Initiating PwHB on etranacogene dezaparvovec sooner may produce greater overall savings and earlier annual savings. Etranacogene dezaparvovec is a treatment option that may provide overall cost savings for US commercial health plans, which would increase as the plan size increases.