Recommendations for economic evaluations of cell and gene therapies: a systematic literature review with critical appraisal

References

• Alnasser SM. Review on mechanistic strategy of gene therapy in the treatment of disease. Gene. 2021;769:145246.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bulaklak K, Gersbach CA. The once and future gene therapy. Nat Commun. 2020;11(1):5820.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lapteva L, Purohit-Sheth T, Serabian M, et al. Clinical development of gene therapies: the first three decades and counting. Mol Ther Methods Clin Dev. 2020;19:387–397. DOI:10.1016/j.omtm.2020.10.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhou W, Wang X. Human gene therapy: a patent analysis. Gene. 2021;803:145889.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong CH, Li D, Wang N, et al. Estimating the financial impact of gene therapy. 2020 Oct 3. [cited 2022 Jul 7]. Available from: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.27.20220871v1.full-text
   Google Scholar
• Abou-El-Enein M, Elsanhoury A, Reinke P. Overcoming challenges facing advanced therapies in the EU market. Cell Stem Cell. 2016;19:293–297.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galipeau J, Sensébé L. Mesenchymal stromal cells: clinical challenges and therapeutic opportunities. Cell Stem Cell. 2018;22:824–833.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iancu EM, Kandalaft LE. Challenges and advantages of cell therapy manufacturing under good manufacturing practices within the hospital setting. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2020;65:233–241.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nestler-Parr S, Korchagina D, Toumi M, et al. Challenges in research and health technology assessment of rare disease technologies: report of the ISPOR rare disease special interest group. Value Health. 2018;21:493–500.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qiu T, Hanna E, Dabbous M, et al. Health technology assessment of gene therapies in Europe and the USA: analysis and future considerations. Cell Gene Ther Insights. 2019;5:1043–1059.
   Google Scholar
• Bubela T, McCabe C, Archibald P, et al. Bringing regenerative medicines to the clinic: the future for regulation and reimbursement. Regener Med. 2015;10:897–911.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iglesias-Lopez C, Obach M, Vallano A, et al. Comparison of regulatory pathways for the approval of advanced therapies in the European Union and the United States. Cytotherapy. 2021;23:261–274.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• US Food and Drug Administration, Gottlieb S. Statement from FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D. and Peter Marks, M.D., Ph.D, Director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research on new policies to advance development of safe and effective cell and GTs. 2019 Jan 15 . [cited 2022 Jul 7]. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/statement-fda-commissioner-scott-gottlieb-md-and-peter-marks-md-phd-director-center-biologics
   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;21:1–204.
   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? OHE Consulting Report. 2017 Feb. [cited 2022 Jul 7]. Available from: https://www.ohe.org/publications/exploring-assessment-and-appraisal-regenerative-medicines-and-cell-therapy-products
   Google Scholar
• Cowles E, Marsden G, Cole A, et al. A review of NICE methods and processes across health technology assessment programmes: why the differences and what is the impact? Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2017;15:469–477.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health Care and Excellence (NICE). NICE health technology evaluations: the manual. 2022 Jan 31. [cited 2022 Jul 7]. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg36/chapter/introduction-to-health-technology-evaluation
   Google Scholar
• Pochopień M, Qiu T, Aballea S, et al. Considering potential solutions for limitations and challenges in the health economic evaluation of GTs. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2021;21:1145–1158. .
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aballéa S, Thokagevistk K, Velikanova R, et al. Health economic evaluation of gene replacement therapies: methodological issues and recommendations. J Mark Access Health Policy. 2020;8:1822666.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Qiu T, Pochopień M, Hanna E, et al. Challenges in the market access of regenerative medicines, and implications for manufacturers and decision-makers: a systematic review. Regen Med. 2022;17:119–139.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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;22:661–668.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drummond M, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 4th ed. Oxford University Press; 2015. cited 2022 Jul 7. Available from: https://www.nlm.nih.gov/nichsr/edu/healthecon/drummond_list.html
   Google Scholar
• Ten Ham RMT, Klungel OH, Leufkens HGM, et al. A review of methodological considerations for economic evaluations of gene therapies and their application in literature. Value Health. 2020;23:1268–1280.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coyle D, Durand-Zaleski I, Farrington J, et al. HTA methodology and value frameworks for evaluation and policy making for cell and GTs. Eur J Health Econ. 2020;21:1421–1437.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Angelis A, Naci H, Hackshaw A. Recalibrating health technology assessment methods for cell and gene therapies. Pharmacoeconomics. 2020;38:1297–1308.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Annemans L, Makady A. TRUST4RD: tool for reducing uncertainties in the evidence generation for specialised treatments for rare diseases. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2020;15:127.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gonçalves E. Advanced therapy medicinal products: value judgement and ethical evaluation in health technology assessment. Eur J Health Econ. 2020;21:311–320.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garrison LP, Jackson T, Paul D, et al. Value-based pricing for emerging GTs: the economic case for a higher cost-effectiveness threshold. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2019;25:793–799.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petrou P. Is it a Chimera? A systematic review of the economic evaluations of CAR-T cell therapy. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2019;19:529–536.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gavan SP, Lu CY, Payne K. Assessing the joint value of genomic-based diagnostic tests and gene therapies. J Pers Med. 2019;9:28.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raymakers AJN, Regier DA, Peacock SJ. Modelling uncertainty in survival and cost-effectiveness is vital in the era of GTs: the case of axicabtagene ciloleucel. Health Policy Technol. 2019;8:103–104.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jönsson 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;20:427–438.
   PubMed 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;7:15–28.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chapman RH, Kumar VM, Whittington MD, et al. Does cost-effectiveness analysis overvalue potential cures? Exploring alternative methods for applying a “shared savings” approach to cost offsets. Value Health. 2021;24:839–845.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gonçalves E. Value-based pricing for advanced therapy medicinal products: emerging affordability solutions. Eur J Health Econ. 2022;23:155–163.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jørgensen J, Servos S, Kefalas P. The potential price and access implications of the cost-utility and budget impact methodologies applied by NICE in England and ICER in the US for a novel gene therapy in Parkinson’s disease. J Mark Access Health Policy. 2018;6:1500419.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Canada’s Drug and Health Technology Agency. Gene therapy: international regulatory and health technology assessment (HTA) activities and reimbursement status. 2018 Mar 27. [cited 2022 Jul 7]. Available from: https://www.cadth.ca/gene-therapy-international-regulatory-and-health-technology-assessment-activities-and-reimbursement
   Google Scholar
• Marsden G, Towse A, Pearson SD, et al. Gene therapy: understanding the science, assessing the evidence, and paying for value. OHE Research Paper. 2017 Mar. [cited 2022 Jul 7]. Available from: https://www.ohe.org/publications/gene-therapy-understanding-science-assessing-evidence-and-paying-value
   Google Scholar
• Bolous NS, Chen Y, Wang H, et al. The cost-effectiveness of gene therapy for severe hemophilia B: a microsimulation study from the United States perspective. Blood. 2021;138:1677–1690.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google 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
• Halioua-Haubold CL, Jolly JK, Smith JA, et al. Potential lifetime quality of life benefits of choroideremia gene therapy: projections from a clinically informed decision model. Eye (Lond). 2019;33:1215–1223.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salcedo J, Bulovic J, Young CM. Cost-effectiveness of a hypothetical cell or gene therapy cure for sickle cell disease. Sci Rep. 2021;11:10838.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fleeman N, Bagust A, Boland A, et al. Talimogene laherparepvec for treating metastatic melanoma: an evidence review group perspective of a NICE single technology appraisal. Pharmacoeconomics. 2017;35:1035–1046.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Almutairi AR, Alkhatib NS, Oh M, et al. Economic evaluation of talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab combination therapy vs ipilimumab monotherapy in patients with advanced unresectable melanoma. JAMA Dermatol. 2019;155:22–28.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cher BP, Gan KY, Aziz MIA, et al. Cost utility analysis of tisagenlecleucel vs salvage chemotherapy in the treatment of relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma from Singapore’s healthcare system perspective. J Med Econ. 2020;23:1321–1329.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thielen FW, van Dongen-Leunis A, Arons AMM, et al. Cost-effectiveness of anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy in pediatric relapsed/refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia. A societal view. Eur J Haematol. 2020;105:203–215.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moradi-Lakeh M, Yaghoubi M, Seitz P, et al. Cost-effectiveness of tisagenlecleucel in paediatric acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (pALL) and adult diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) in Switzerland. Adv Ther. 2021;38:3427–3443.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wakase S, Teshima T, Zhang J, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of tisagenlecleucel for the treatment of pediatric and young adult patients with relapsed or refractory B cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia in Japan. Transplant Cell Ther. 2021;27:241.e1.
   Google Scholar
• Qi CZ, Bollu V, Yang H, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of tisagenlecleucel for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in the United States. Clin Ther. 2021;43:1300–19.e8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin JK, Lerman BJ, Barnes JI, et al. Cost effectiveness of chimeric antigen receptor T-Cell therapy in relapsed or refractory pediatric B-Cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:3192–3202.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Furzer J, Gupta S, Nathan PC, et al. Cost-effectiveness of tisagenlecleucel vs standard care in high-risk relapsed pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia in Canada. JAMA Oncol. 2020;6:393–401.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sarkar RR, Gloude NJ, Schiff D, et al. Cost-effectiveness of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy in pediatric relapsed/refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2019;111:719–726.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Walton M, Sharif S, Simmonds M, et al. Tisagenlecleucel for the treatment of relapsed or refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia in people aged up to 25 years: an evidence review group perspective of a NICE single technology appraisal. Pharmacoeconomics. 2019;37:1209–1217.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whittington MD, McQueen RB, Ollendorf DA, et al. Long-term survival and value of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy for pediatric patients with relapsed or refractory leukemia. JAMA Pediatr. 2018;172:1161–1168.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ribera Santasusana JM, de Andrés Saldaña A, García-Muñoz N, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of tisagenlecleucel in the treatment of relapsed or refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia in children and young adults in Spain. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2020;12:253–264.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farmer C, Bullement A, Packman D, et al. Voretigene neparvovec for treating inherited retinal dystrophies caused by RPE65 gene mutations: an evidence review group perspective of a NICE highly specialised technology appraisal. Pharmacoeconomics. 2020;38:1309–1318.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uhrmann MF, Lorenz B, Gissel C. Cost effectiveness of voretigene neparvovec for RPE65-mediated inherited retinal degeneration in Germany. Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2020;9:17.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Viriato D, Bennett N, Sidhu R, et al. An economic evaluation of voretigene neparvovec for the treatment of biallelic RPE65-mediated inherited retinal dystrophies in the UK. Adv Ther. 2020;37:1233–1247.
   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;137:1115–1123.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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;22:161–167.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook K, Forbes SP, Adamski K, et al. Assessing the potential cost-effectiveness of a gene therapy for the treatment of hemophilia A. J Med Econ. 2020;23:501–512.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zuluaga-Sanchez S, Teynor M, Knight C, et al. Cost effectiveness of nusinersen in the treatment of patients with infantile-onset and later-onset spinal muscular atrophy in Sweden. Pharmacoeconomics. 2019;37:845–865.
   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;3:151–161.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simons CL, Malone D, Wang M, et al. Cost-effectiveness for KTE-X19 CAR T therapy for adult patients with relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma in the United States. J Med Econ. 2021;24:421–431.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu R, Oluwole OO, Diakite I, et al. Cost effectiveness of axicabtagene ciloleucel versus tisagenlecleucel for adult patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma after two or more lines of systemic therapy in the United States. J Med Econ. 2021;24:458–468.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whittington MD, McQueen RB, Ollendorf DA, et al. Long-term survival and cost-effectiveness associated with axicabtagene ciloleucel vs chemotherapy for treatment of B-cell lymphoma. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2:e190035.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roth JA, Sullivan SD, Lin VW, et al. Cost-effectiveness of axicabtagene ciloleucel for adult patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma in the United States. J Med Econ. 2018;21:1238–1245.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin JK, Muffly LS, Spinner MA, et al. Cost effectiveness of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy in multiply relapsed or refractory adult large B-cell lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37:2105–2119.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dean R, Jensen I, Cyr P, et al. An updated cost-utility model for onasemnogene abeparvovec (Zolgensma®) in spinal muscular atrophy type 1 patients and comparison with evaluation by the Institute for Clinical and Effectiveness Review (ICER). J Mark Access Health Policy. 2021;9:1889841.
   PubMedGoogle 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;7:1601484.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Broekhoff TF, Sweegers CCG, Krijkamp EM, et al. Early cost-effectiveness of onasemnogene abeparvovec-xioi (Zolgensma) and nusinersen (Spinraza) treatment for spinal muscular atrophy I in the Netherlands with relapse scenarios. Value Health. 2021;24:759–769.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Connock M, Andronis L, Auguste P, et al. Will the US$5 million onasemnogene abeparvosec treatment for spinal muscular atrophy represent ‘value for money’ for the NHS? A rapid inquiry into suggestions that it may be cost-effective. Expert Opin Biol Ther. 2020;20:823–827.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shih ST, Farrar MA, Wiley V, et al. Newborn screening for spinal muscular atrophy with disease-modifying therapies: a cost-effectiveness analysis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2021;92:1296–1304.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kansal AR, Reifsnider OS, Brand SB, et al. Economic evaluation of betibeglogene autotemcel (Beti-cel) gene addition therapy in transfusion-dependent β-thalassemia. J Mark Access Health Policy. 2021;9:1922028.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schuster Bruce C, Brhlikova P, Heath J, et al. The use of validated and nonvalidated surrogate endpoints in two European Medicines Agency expedited approval pathways: a cross-sectional study of products authorised 2011-2018. PLoS Med. 2019;16:e1002873.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phillippo DM, Ades AE, Dias S, et al. Methods for population-adjusted indirect comparisons in health technology appraisal. Med Decis Making. 2018;38:200–211.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sheringham J, Kuhn I, Burt J. The use of experimental vignette studies to identify drivers of variations in the delivery of health care: a scoping review. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021;21:81.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Javalkar K, Rak E, Phillips A, et al. Predictors of caregiver burden among mothers of children with chronic conditions. Children (Basel). 2017;4:39.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Attema AE, Brouwer WBF, Claxton K. Discounting in economic evaluations. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36:745–758.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar