IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eujhec/v26y2025i6d10.1007_s10198-024-01754-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost comparison analysis of onasemnogene abeparvovec and nusinersen for treatment of patients with spinal muscular atrophy type 1 in the Netherlands

Author

Listed:
  • Simon Schans

    (Health-Ecore
    University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen)

  • Rimma Velikanova

    (University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen
    Asc Academics)

  • Diana Weidlich

    (Clarivate)

  • Ruth Howells

    (Clarivate)

  • Anish Patel

    (Novartis Gene Therapies, Inc.)

  • Matthias Bischof

    (Novartis Gene Therapies Switzerland GmbH)

  • Maarten J. Postma

    (Health-Ecore
    University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen
    University of Groningen)

  • Cornelis Boersma

    (Health-Ecore
    University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen
    Open University)

Abstract

Background Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) is a rare genetic disease resulting in loss of motor function and, in severe cases (e.g., SMA type 1), infantile death. While treatments like nusinersen and onasemnogene abeparvovec improve prognosis for patients with SMA, costs for these medications can contribute to economic burden. Objective Direct costs were compared for onasemnogene abeparvovec, a one-time gene replacement therapy, versus nusinersen, a lifelong therapy, for patients with SMA type 1 and/or three or more survival motor neuron 2 (SMN2) gene copies in the Netherlands. Methods A cost comparison analysis model of 1-year incident patient population from the Netherlands was used to compare costs of onasemnogene abeparvovec versus nusinersen for patients eligible for onasemnogene abeparvovec immediately after diagnosis. Multiple analyses were conducted for economic outcomes (e.g., base-case, break-even, deterministic sensitivity, probabilistic sensitivity, scenario analyses). Results Cost differences of –€2.9 million (undiscounted) and –€1.5 million (discounted) per patient with SMA type 1 treated with onasemnogene abeparvovec versus nusinersen over a 20-year time horizon were identified (base-case). Reduced costs with onasemnogene abeparvovec versus nusinersen were evident after 8.25 years. Conclusion Onasemnogene abeparvovec was less costly than nusinersen after 8.25 years of treatment of patients with SMA type 1 in the Netherlands.

Suggested Citation

  • Simon Schans & Rimma Velikanova & Diana Weidlich & Ruth Howells & Anish Patel & Matthias Bischof & Maarten J. Postma & Cornelis Boersma, 2025. "Cost comparison analysis of onasemnogene abeparvovec and nusinersen for treatment of patients with spinal muscular atrophy type 1 in the Netherlands," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 26(6), pages 1101-1110, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:26:y:2025:i:6:d:10.1007_s10198-024-01754-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s10198-024-01754-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10198-024-01754-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10198-024-01754-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:26:y:2025:i:6:d:10.1007_s10198-024-01754-3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.