Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis of Haemate-P versus other von Willebrand disease treatments in Spain.

IF 2.9 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Journal of Medical Economics Pub Date : 2025-12-01 Epub Date: 2025-03-14 DOI:10.1080/13696998.2025.2474886
Juan E Megias-Vericat, Gines Escolar, Michele R Wilson, Pablo Mendez, Cheryl L McDade, Laura Vidal Barrientos, Radovan Tomic, Marco Panebianco, Stephan Linden, Songkai Yan
{"title":"Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis of Haemate-P versus other von Willebrand disease treatments in Spain.","authors":"Juan E Megias-Vericat, Gines Escolar, Michele R Wilson, Pablo Mendez, Cheryl L McDade, Laura Vidal Barrientos, Radovan Tomic, Marco Panebianco, Stephan Linden, Songkai Yan","doi":"10.1080/13696998.2025.2474886","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>von Willebrand Disease (vWD) is the most common congenital bleeding disorder, with an estimated prevalence in Spain of 0.01%. The aim was to assess the cost-utility of Haemate-P compared with present alternatives in the treatment of vWD in Spain.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A Markov model was developed in Microsoft Excel to estimate the cost-effectiveness of various treatments for vWD over a lifetime horizon. Transition probabilities among health states were based on age and number of bleeding events. Treatment strategies compared included Haemate-P, Fanhdi, and Wilate in long-term prophylaxis (LTP) or on-demand treatment (ODT). Costs and quality-of-life were measured based on patient age, treatment, and number of bleeding events incurred. Both costs and utilities were discounted at 3%. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>When comparing LTP regimens, Haemate-P was less costly and numerically more effective than both Fanhdi (incremental costs = -€1,313,845; incremental quality-adjusted life-years [QALY] = 0.13) and Wilate (incremental costs = -€2,233,940; incremental QALY = 0.29). For ODT, Haemate-P was assumed to have equal effectiveness as Fanhdi and Wilate but reduced the costs by €696,857 and €1,145,780, respectively. Haemate-P prophylaxis was more effective and less costly compared with Haemate-P on-demand in the base case (incremental costs = -€633,317; incremental QALY = 0.90). Results were generally robust to sensitivity analyses.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In patients with severe vWD experiencing a high bleed rate, Haemate-P prophylaxis is a less costly and potentially more effective treatment strategy and Haemate-P is cost-saving among on-demand strategies.</p>","PeriodicalId":16229,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Economics","volume":" ","pages":"436-445"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Economics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2025.2474886","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: von Willebrand Disease (vWD) is the most common congenital bleeding disorder, with an estimated prevalence in Spain of 0.01%. The aim was to assess the cost-utility of Haemate-P compared with present alternatives in the treatment of vWD in Spain.

Methods: A Markov model was developed in Microsoft Excel to estimate the cost-effectiveness of various treatments for vWD over a lifetime horizon. Transition probabilities among health states were based on age and number of bleeding events. Treatment strategies compared included Haemate-P, Fanhdi, and Wilate in long-term prophylaxis (LTP) or on-demand treatment (ODT). Costs and quality-of-life were measured based on patient age, treatment, and number of bleeding events incurred. Both costs and utilities were discounted at 3%. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results: When comparing LTP regimens, Haemate-P was less costly and numerically more effective than both Fanhdi (incremental costs = -€1,313,845; incremental quality-adjusted life-years [QALY] = 0.13) and Wilate (incremental costs = -€2,233,940; incremental QALY = 0.29). For ODT, Haemate-P was assumed to have equal effectiveness as Fanhdi and Wilate but reduced the costs by €696,857 and €1,145,780, respectively. Haemate-P prophylaxis was more effective and less costly compared with Haemate-P on-demand in the base case (incremental costs = -€633,317; incremental QALY = 0.90). Results were generally robust to sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions: In patients with severe vWD experiencing a high bleed rate, Haemate-P prophylaxis is a less costly and potentially more effective treatment strategy and Haemate-P is cost-saving among on-demand strategies.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Medical Economics
Journal of Medical Economics HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
4.20%
发文量
122
期刊介绍: Journal of Medical Economics'' mission is to provide ethical, unbiased and rapid publication of quality content that is validated by rigorous peer review. The aim of Journal of Medical Economics is to serve the information needs of the pharmacoeconomics and healthcare research community, to help translate research advances into patient care and be a leader in transparency/disclosure by facilitating a collaborative and honest approach to publication. Journal of Medical Economics publishes high-quality economic assessments of novel therapeutic and device interventions for an international audience
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信