Health economic evaluation of gene replacement therapies: methodological issues and recommendations

References

• Sun W, Zheng W, Simeonov A. Drug discovery and development for rare genetic disorders. Am J Med Genet Part A. 2017;173(9):2307–16. [ published Online First: 2017/07/22].
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boulad F, Mansilla-Soto J, Cabriolu A, et al. Gene therapy and genome editing. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am. 2018;32(2):329–342. published Online First: 2018/02/21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keller AS, Iv TCS K, DeLalio LJ, et al. Replacement therapies in metabolic disease. Curr Pharm Biotechnol. 2018;19(5):382–399. [published Online First: 2018/06/21].
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hampson G, Towse A, Pearson SD, et al. Gene therapy: evidence, value and affordability in the US health care system. J Comp Eff Res. 2018;7(1):15–28. [published Online First: 2017/11/17].
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunbar CE, High KA, Joung JK, et al. Gene therapy comes of age. Science (New York, NY). 2018;359(6372):eaan4672. [published Online First: 2018/01/13].
   Google Scholar
• Jonsson B, Hampson G, Michaels J, et al. Advanced therapy medicinal products and health technology assessment principles and practices for value-based and sustainable healthcare. Eur J Health Econ. 2019;20(3):427–438. [published Online First: 2018/09/20].
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hettle R, Corbett M, Hinde S, et al. The assessment and appraisal of regenerative medicines and cell therapy products: an exploration of methods for review, economic evaluation and appraisal. Health Technol Assess. 2017;21(7):1–204. [published Online First: 2017/03/01].
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marsden G, Towse A Exploring the assessment and appraisal of regenerative medicines and cell therapy products: is the NICE approach fit for purpose? 2017. [cited May 2019]. Available from: https://www.ohe.org/publications/exploring-assessment-and-appraisal-regenerative-medicines-and-cell-therapy-products#
   Google Scholar
• Zimmermann M, Lubinga SJ, Banken R, et al. Cost utility of voretigene neparvovec for biallelic RPE65-mediated inherited retinal disease. Value Health. 2019;22(2):161–167.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• South E, Cox E, Meader N, et al. Strimvelis® for treating severe combined immunodeficiency caused by adenosine deaminase deficiency: an evidence review group perspective of a NICE highly specialised technology evaluation. Pharmacoecon Open. 2019;3(2):151–161.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson S, Buessing M, O’Connell T, et al. Cost-effectiveness of voretigene neparvovec-rzyl vs standard care for RPE65-mediated inherited retinal disease. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2019;137(10):1115–1123. [published Online First: 2019/07/19].
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malone DC, Dean R, Arjunji R, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of using onasemnogene abeparvocec (AVXS-101) in spinal muscular atrophy type 1 patients. J Mark Access Health Policy. 2019;7(1):1601484.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Machin N, Ragni MV, Smith KJ. Gene therapy in hemophilia A: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Blood Adv. 2018;2(14):1792–1798.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ICER. Voretigene neparvovec for biallelic RPE65-mediated retinal disease: effectiveness and value; 2017. [cited 2019 Jun 6]. Available from: https://icer-review.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/MWCEPAC_VORETIGENE_DRAFT_EVIDENCE_REPORT_11152017.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Drummond MF, Neumann PJ, Sullivan SD, et al. Analytic considerations in applying a general economic evaluation reference case to gene therapy. Value Health. 2019;22(6):661–668. [published Online First: 2019/06/15].
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanders GD, Neumann PJ, Basu A, et al. Recommendations for conduct, methodological practices, and reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses: second panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA. 2016;316(10):1093–1103.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ICER. ICER’s reference case for economic evaluations: principles and rationale; 2018. [cited 2019 Jun 6]. Available from: https://icer-review.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/ICER_Reference_Case_July-2018.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Lopez-Bastida J, Pena-Longobardo LM, Aranda-Reneo I, et al. Social/economic costs and health-related quality of life in patients with spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) in Spain. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2017;12(1):141. [published Online First: 2017/08/20].
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hendrie D, Bebbington A, Bower C, et al. Measuring use and cost of health sector and related care in a population of girls and young women with Rett syndrome. Res Autism Spectrum Disorders. 2011;5(2):901–909.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Griebsch I, Coast J, Brown J. Quality-adjusted life-years lack quality in pediatric care: a critical review of published cost-utility studies in child health. Pediatrics. 2005;115(5):e600–14. [published Online First: 2005/05/04].
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nord E. An alternative to QALYs: the saved young life equivalent (SAVE). BMJ. 1992;305(6858):875–877.
   Google Scholar
• Brouwer W, Rutten F, Koopmanschap M. Costing in economic evaluations. In: Drummond M, McGuire A, editors. Economic evaluation in health care: merging theory with practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2002. p. 68–93.
   Google Scholar
• Oliva-Moreno J, Trapero-Bertran M, Pena-Longobardo LM, et al. The valuation of informal care in cost-of-illness studies: a systematic review. PharmacoEconomics. 2017;35(3):331–345. [published Online First: 2016/11/17].
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hjortsberg C, Persson U. The value of informal caregiver time for psychotic illness. J Ment Health Policy Econ. 2010;13(3):127–133. [published Online First: 2010/11/06].
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Baal P, Morton A, Meltzer D, et al. Future unrelated medical costs need to be considered in cost effectiveness analysis. Eur J Health Econ. 2019;20(1):1–5. [published Online First: 2018/04/20].
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Vries LM, Van Baal PHM, Brouwer WBF. Future costs in cost-effectiveness analyses: past, present, future. PharmacoEconomics. 2019;37(2):119–130. [published Online First: 2018/11/27].
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanna E, Remuzat C, Auquier P, et al. Advanced therapy medicinal products: current and future perspectives. J Mark Access Health Policy. 2016;4(1):31036. [published Online First: 2016/04/29].
   Google Scholar
• Augustine EF, Adams HR, Mink JW. Clinical trials in rare disease: challenges and opportunities. J Child Neurol. 2013;28(9):1142–1150. [published Online First: 2013/09/10].
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gene replacement therapy clinical trial for patients with spinal muscular atrophy Type 1 (STR1VE) [updated Nov 2019; cited Nov 2019]. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03306277
   Google Scholar
• Ciani O, Buyse M, Drummond M, et al. Time to review the role of surrogate end points in health policy: state of the art and the way forward. Value Health. 2017;20(3):487–495. [published Online First: 2017/03/16].
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vinden C. Surrogate end points save lives. Can J Surg J Canadien De Chirurgie. 2017;60(2):81–82. [published Online First: 2017/03/25].
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zimmermann MR, Lubinga SJ, Rind D, et al. A cost-effectiveness analysis of voretigene neparvovec for vision loss due to biallelic Rpe65-mediated inherited retinal disease. Value Health. 2018;21:S205–S06.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rémuzat C, Thokagevistk K, Millier A, et al. Factors to be considered to ensure acceptability of historically controlled studies by HTA bodies. ISPOR EU. Copenhagen; 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Berger ML, Martin BC, Husereau D, et al. A questionnaire to assess the relevance and credibility of observational studies to inform health care decision making: an ISPOR-AMCP-NPC good practice task force report. Value Health. 2014;17(2):143–156. [published Online First: 2014/03/19].
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stuart EA. Matching methods for causal inference: A review and a look forward. Stat Sci. 2010;25(1):1–21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whitehead SJ, Ali S. Health outcomes in economic evaluation: the QALY and utilities. Br Med Bull. 2010;96(1):5–21. [published Online First: 2010/11/03].
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drummond M, Tarricone R, Torbica A. Assessing the added value of health technologies: reconciling different perspectives. Value Health. 2013;16(1Suppl):S7–13. [published Online First: 2013/01/18].
   Google Scholar
• FDA approves innovative gene therapy to treat pediatric patients with spinal muscular atrophy, a rare disease and leading genetic cause of infant mortality; 2019. [cited November 2019]. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-innovative-gene-therapy-treat-pediatric-patients-spinal-muscular-atrophy-rare-disease
   Google Scholar
• Hays RM, Valentine J, Haynes G, et al. The seattle pediatric palliative care project: effects on family satisfaction and health-related quality of life. J Palliat Med. 2006;9(3):716–728. [published Online First: 2006/06/07].
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Germain N, Aballéa S, Toumi M. Measuring the health-related quality of life in young children: how far have we come? J Mark Access Health Policy. 2019;7(1):1618661.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims: draft guidance. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4:79. Published 2006 Oct 11. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-4-79.
   Google Scholar
• The Measurement and Valuation of Health Status Using EQ-5D: A European Perspective - 2003 Evidence from the EuroQol BIOMED Research Programme. Springer, 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002;21(2):271–292. [published Online First: 2002/04/10].
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ungar WJ. Challenges in health state valuation in paediatric economic evaluation: are QALYs contraindicated? PharmacoEconomics. 2011;29(8):641–652. [published Online First: 2011/05/25].
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kind P, Klose K, Gusi N, et al. Can adult weights be used to value child health states? Testing the influence of perspective in valuing EQ-5D-Y. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(10):2519–2539. [published Online First: 2015/04/22].
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noyes J, Edwards RT. EQ-5D for the assessment of health-related quality of life and resource allocation in children: a systematic methodological review. Value Health. 2011;14(8):1117–1129. [published Online First: 2011/12/14].
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen G, Ratcliffe JA. Review of the development and application of generic multi-attribute utility instruments for paediatric populations. PharmacoEconomics. 2015;33(10):1013–1028. [published Online First: 2015/05/20].
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Killian JT Jr., Lane JB, Lee HS, et al. Caretaker quality of life in rett syndrome: disorder features and psychological predictors. Pediatr Neurol. 2016;58:67–74. [published Online First: 2016/03/21].
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cremers CH, Fischer MJ, Kruitwagen-van Reenen ET, et al. Participation and mental well-being of mothers of home-living patients with spinal muscular atrophy. Neuromuscul Disord. 2019;29(4):321–329. [published Online First: 2019/04/08].
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kruse S, Schneeberg A, Brussoni M. Construct validity and impact of mode of administration of the PedsQL™ among a pediatric injury population. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12(1):168.
   Google Scholar
• Varni JW, Seid M, Rode CA. The PedsQL: measurement model for the pediatric quality of life inventory. Med Care. 1999;37(2):126–139. [published Online First: 1999/02/19].
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lloyd AJ, Thompson R, Gallop K, et al. Estimation of the quality of life benefits associated with treatment for spinal muscular atrophy. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2019;11:615–622.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lloyd A, Piglowska N, Ciulla T, et al. Estimation of impact of RPE65-mediated inherited retinal disease on quality of life and the potential benefits of gene therapy. Br J Ophthalmol. 2019;103(11):1610–1614. [published Online First: 2019/01/20].
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patrick DL, Burke LB, Gwaltney CJ, et al. Content validity–establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO good research practices task force report: part 1–eliciting concepts for a new PRO instrument. Value Health. 2011;14(8):967–977. [published Online First: 2011/12/14].
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• US Department of Health and Human Services. Guidance for industry patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims; 2009. [cited November 2019]. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/media/77832/download
   Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency. Committee for medicinal products for human use. Reflection paper on the regulatory guidance for the use of health related quality of life (HRQL) measures in the evaluation of medicinal products. [cited November 2019.]. Available from: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2009/09/WC500003637.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Oppe M, Rand-Hendriksen K, Shah K, et al. EuroQol protocols for time trade-off valuation of health outcomes. PharmacoEconomics. 2016;34(10):993–1004. [published Online First: 2016/04/17].
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dolan P. Chapter 32 The measurement of health-related quality of life for use in resource allocation decisions in health care. Handbook of Health Economics. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Bv; 2000. p. 1723–1760.
   Google Scholar
• Nord E. The person-trade-off approach to valuing health care programs. Med Decis Making. 1995;15(3):201–208. [published Online First: 1995/07/01].
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nord E, Daniels N, Kamlet M. QALYs: some challenges. Value Health. 2009;12(Suppl 1):S10–5. [published Online First: 2009/03/11].
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NICE. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. Process and methods [PMG9]; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• HAS. Choices in methods for economic evaluation. A methodological guide; 2012. [cited 2019 Jun 6]. Available from: https://www.has-sante.fr/portail/upload/docs/application/pdf/2012-10/choices_in_methods_for_economic_evaluation.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Lakdawalla DN, Doshi JA, Garrison LP Jr., et al. Defining elements of value in health care-a health economics approach: an ISPOR special task force report [3]. Value Health. 2018;21(2):131–139. [published Online First: 2018/02/27].
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torrance GW. Utility measurement in healthcare: the things I never got to. PharmacoEconomics. 2006;24(11):1069–1078. [published Online First: 2006/10/28].
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor M, Chilton S, Ronaldson S, et al. Comparing increments in utility of health: an individual-based approach. Value Health. 2017;20(2):224–229. [published Online First: 2017/02/27].
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ubel PA. How stable are people’s preferences for giving priority to severely ill patients? Soc Sci Med. 1999;49(7):895–903. [published Online First: 1999/09/01].
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reckers-Droog VT, van Exel NJA, Brouwer WBF. Looking back and moving forward: on the application of proportional shortfall in healthcare priority setting in the Netherlands. Health Policy. 2018;122(6):621–629. [published Online First: 2018/04/29].
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Husereau D. How do we value a cure? Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2015;15(4):551–555. [published Online First: 2015/04/29].
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hampson G, Mott D, Devlin N, et al. Public preferences for health gains and cures: a discrete choice experiment. OHE Consulting Ltd; 2019. [cited 2019 Jun 6]. Available from: https://www.ohe.org/publications/public-preferences-health-gains-and-cures-discrete-choice-experiment#
   Google Scholar
• NICE and NHS England consultation on changes to the arrangements for evaluating and funding drugs and other health technologies assessed through NICE’s technology appraisal and highly specialised technologies programmes; 2017. [cited December 2019]. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/Media/Default/About/what-we-do/NICE-guidance/NICE-technology-appraisals/board-paper-TA-HST-consultation-mar-17-HST-only.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Medic G, Korchagina D, Young KE, et al. Do payers value rarity? An analysis of the relationship between disease rarity and orphan drug prices in Europe. J Mark Access Health Policy. 2017;5(1):1299665. [published Online First: 2017/05/06].
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Baltussen R, Marsh K, Thokala P, et al. Multicriteria decision analysis to support health technology assessment agencies: benefits, limitations, and the way forward. Value Health. 2019;22(11):1283–1288. [published Online First: 2019/11/12].
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Birch S, Donaldson C. Valuing the benefits and costs of health care programmes: where’s the ‘extra’ in extra-welfarism? Soc Sci Med. 2003;56(5):1121–1133. [published Online First: 2003/02/21].
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EurVaQ. European value of a quality adjusted life year. Instrument: specific targeted research project. Final publishable report. Sixth framework programme. [cited November 2019]. Available from: https://research.ncl.ac.uk/eurovaq/EuroVaQ_Final_Publishable_Report_and_Appendices.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Peter J Neumann; Theodore G Ganiats; Louise B Russell; Gillian D Sanders; Joanna E Siegel. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Choix méthodologiques pour l’évaluation de l’efficience à la HAS: version soumise à la consultation publique – HAS (11 juin 2019); 2019. [cited November 2019]. Available from: http://www.ors-auvergne.org/veille-sante-social/choix-methodologiques-levaluation-de-lefficience-a-has-version-soumise-a-consultation-publique-has-11-juin-2019/
   Google Scholar
• Yu B, Peng Y. Mixture cure models for multivariate survival data. Comput Stat Data Anal. 2008;52(3):1524–1532.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grigore B, Peters J, Hyde C, et al. A comparison of two methods for expert elicitation in health technology assessments. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;16(1):85.
   Google Scholar
• Soares MO, Sharples L, Morton A, et al. Experiences of structured elicitation for model-based cost-effectiveness analyses. Value Health. 2018;21(6):715–723. [published Online First: 2018/06/19].
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soares MO, Bojke L, Dumville J, et al. Methods to elicit experts’ beliefs over uncertain quantities: application to a cost effectiveness transition model of negative pressure wound therapy for severe pressure ulceration. Stat Med. 2011;30(19):2363–2380.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bojke L, Claxton K, Bravo-Vergel Y, et al. Eliciting distributions to populate decision analytic models. Value Health. 2010;13(5):557–564. [published Online First: 2010/03/30].
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Veen D, Stoel D, Zondervan-Zwijnenburg M, et al. Proposal for a five-step method to elicit expert judgment. Front Psychol. 2017;8:2110. [published Online First: 2017/12/21].
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Discounting for public policy: theory and recent evidence on the merits of updating the discount rate: council of economic advisers issue brief; 2017. [cited November 2019]. Available from: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/page/files/201701_cea_discounting_issue_brief.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Severens JL, Milne RJ. Discounting health outcomes in economic evaluation: the ongoing debate. Value Health. 2004;7(4):397–401. [published Online First: 2004/09/29].
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clay E, Pochopien M, Aballea S, et al. PRM44 - Differentiating discount rates in cost-effectiveness evaluations in the context of gene therapies. Value Health. 2018;21:S363.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lipscomb J, Weinstein MC, Torrance GW, et al. Time preference. In: Gold M, Siegel J, Russel Leditors. Cost-effectiveness. Heal. Med. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1996. p. 214–246.
   Google Scholar
• Cleemput I, Neyt M, Van De Sande S, et al. Belgian guidelines for economic evaluations and budget impact analyses: second edition. KCE reports. Brussels: Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre; 2012. [cited May 2018]. Available from: https://kce.fgov.be/sites/default/files/page_documents/KCE_183C_economic_evaluations_second_edition.pdf
   Google Scholar
• National Health Care Institute. Guideline for economic evaluations in healthcare. Diemen; 2016. [cited May 2018]. Available from: https://english.zorginstituutnederland.nl/publications/reports/2016/06/16/guideline-foreconomic-evaluations-in-healthcare
   Google Scholar
• Weinstein MC, Stason WB. Foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis for health and medical practices. N Engl J Med. 1977;296(13):716–721. [published Online First: 1977/03/31].
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keeler EB, Cretin S. Discounting of life-saving and other nonmonetary effects. Manage Sci. 1983;29(3):300–306.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Claxton K, Paulden M, Gravelle H, et al. Discounting and decision making in the economic evaluation of health-care technologies. Health Econ. 2011;20(1):2–15. [published Online First: 2010/12/15].
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arrow K, Lind RC. Uncertainty and the evaluation of public investment decisions. Am Econ Rev. 1970;60(3):364–378.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bloomberg. Government bond rates overview; 2020. [cited 2020 June 10]. Available from: https://www.bloomberg.com/markets/rates-bonds/government-bonds/us
   Google Scholar
• Klock RM, Brouwer WB, Annemans LJ, et al. Towards a healthier discount procedure. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2005;5(1):59–63. [published Online First: 2005/02/01].
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brouwer WB, Niessen LW, Postma MJ, et al. Need for differential discounting of costs and health effects in cost effectiveness analyses. BMJ. 2005;331(7514):446–448. [published Online First: 2005/08/20].
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gravelle H, Smith D. Discounting for health effects in cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ. 2001;10(7):587–599. [published Online First: 2001/12/18].
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ultsch B, Damm O, Beutels P, et al. Methods for health economic evaluation of vaccines and immunization decision frameworks: a consensus framework from a European vaccine economics community. PharmacoEconomics. 2016;34(3):227–244. [published Online First: 2015/10/20].
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WHO guide for standardization of economic evaluations of immunization programmes; 2019.
   Google Scholar