IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharmo/v3y2019i4d10.1007_s41669-019-0142-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Systematic Review of the Health Economics of Pompe Disease

Author

Listed:
  • Benedikt Schoser

    (Friedrich-Baur-Institut, Neurologische Klinik, Klinikum der Universität München, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich)

  • Andreas Hahn

    (University of Giessen)

  • Emma James

    (Audentes Therapeutics)

  • Digant Gupta

    (Bridge Medical Consulting Ltd, Gainsborough House)

  • Matthew Gitlin

    (BluePath Solutions)

  • Suyash Prasad

    (Audentes Therapeutics)

Abstract

Background Pompe disease is a rare, severe neuromuscular disease with high mortality and substantial clinical and humanistic burden. However, the economic burden of Pompe disease and the health economic value of its treatments are not well understood. The objectives of this systematic review were to characterize the health economic evidence on Pompe disease, including healthcare resource use and costs (direct and indirect), health utilities, and the cost-effectiveness of current treatments used to manage patients with Pompe disease. Methods A systematic search of MEDLINE® and Embase® was performed to retrieve publications on the health economics of Pompe disease. Publications were screened according to predefined criteria, extracted, and quality assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Data were narratively synthesized. Results Eight publications evaluated patients with infantile-onset Pompe disease (IOPD) (two studies), late-onset Pompe disease (LOPD) (four studies), or both (two studies). In IOPD, total cost of supportive therapy (excluding treatment) was €32,871 (equivalent to US$41,667 when adjusted for currency and inflation to 2017 US dollars) over a life expectancy of 0.4 years. In adult LOPD, the average annual cost per patient of supportive therapy was €22,475 (adjusted $28,489). Resource use in LOPD was high, with nursing home admissions accounting for 19% of annual direct medical costs. Health economic evaluations estimating incremental costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained with enzyme-replacement therapy (ERT) versus supportive therapy ranged from £109,991 (adjusted, $186,851) per QALY gained in Columbia to €1,043,868 (adjusted, $1,323,207) in the Netherlands. Discussion Despite a full systematic literature search, only eight relevant publications were identified, most of which were of relatively poor quality. However, a significant economic burden of Pompe disease on patients, families, healthcare systems, and society was found, with the majority of costs driven by the only currently approved treatment, ERT. Health economic evaluations of ERT versus supportive therapy vary significantly, with the majority well above willingness-to-pay thresholds. New therapies and approaches to care are needed to address the persistent and lifelong economic burden of Pompe disease and the large incremental cost-effectiveness ratios observed.

Suggested Citation

  • Benedikt Schoser & Andreas Hahn & Emma James & Digant Gupta & Matthew Gitlin & Suyash Prasad, 2019. "A Systematic Review of the Health Economics of Pompe Disease," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 3(4), pages 479-493, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:3:y:2019:i:4:d:10.1007_s41669-019-0142-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s41669-019-0142-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41669-019-0142-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s41669-019-0142-3?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Helen Dakin & Nancy Devlin & Yan Feng & Nigel Rice & Phill O'Neill & David Parkin, 2015. "The Influence of Cost‐Effectiveness and Other Factors on Nice Decisions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(10), pages 1256-1271, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Helena Costa-Verdera & Fanny Collaud & Christopher R. Riling & Pauline Sellier & Jayme M. L. Nordin & G. Michael Preston & Umut Cagin & Julien Fabregue & Simon Barral & Maryse Moya-Nilges & Jacomina K, 2021. "Hepatic expression of GAA results in enhanced enzyme bioavailability in mice and non-human primates," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 12(1), pages 1-16, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Maynou, Laia & Cairns, John, 2019. "What is driving HTA decision-making? Evidence from cancer drug reimbursement decisions from 6 European countries," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 130-139.
    2. Maynou, Laia & Cairns, John, 2018. "What is driving HTA decision-making? Evidence from cancer drug reimbursement decisions from 6 European countries," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 90877, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    3. Anna Hobbins & Luke Barry & Dan Kelleher & Koonal Shah & Nancy Devlin & Juan Manuel Ramos Goni & Ciaran O’Neill, 2018. "Utility Values for Health States in Ireland: A Value Set for the EQ-5D-5L," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(11), pages 1345-1353, November.
    4. Angela Rocchi & Elizabeth Miller & Robert Hopkins & Ron Goeree, 2012. "Common Drug Review Recommendations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 229-246, March.
    5. Carlos King Ho Wong & Olivia Wu & Bernard M. Y. Cheung, 2018. "Towards a Transparent, Credible, Evidence-Based Decision-Making Process of New Drug Listing on the Hong Kong Hospital Authority Drug Formulary: Challenges and Suggestions," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 5-14, February.
    6. Kerr, Anne & Hill, Rosemary L. & Till, Christopher, 2018. "The limits of responsible innovation: Exploring care, vulnerability and precision medicine," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 24-31.
    7. J. Raftery, 2014. "NICE’s Cost-Effectiveness Range: Should it be Lowered?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(7), pages 613-615, July.
    8. Wettstein, Dominik J. & Boes, Stefan, 2022. "How value-based policy interventions influence price negotiations for new medicines: An experimental approach and initial evidence," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(2), pages 112-121.
    9. Mikael Svensson & Fredrik Nilsson & Karl Arnberg, 2015. "Reimbursement Decisions for Pharmaceuticals in Sweden: The Impact of Disease Severity and Cost Effectiveness," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(11), pages 1229-1236, November.
    10. Shiroiwa, Takeru & Fukuda, Takashi & Ikeda, Shunya & Takura, Tomoyuki, 2017. "New decision-making processes for the pricing of health technologies in Japan: The FY 2016/2017 pilot phase for the introduction of economic evaluations," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(8), pages 836-841.
    11. Jobjörnsson, Sebastian & Forster, Martin & Pertile, Paolo & Burman, Carl-Fredrik, 2016. "Late-stage pharmaceutical R&D and pricing policies under two-stage regulation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 298-311.
    12. Olina Efthymiadou, 2023. "Health technology assessment criteria as drivers of coverage with managed entry agreements: a case study of cancer medicines in four countries," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(7), pages 1023-1031, September.
    13. M. J. Walton & J. O’Connor & C. Carroll & L. Claxton & R. Hodgson, 2019. "A Review of Issues Affecting the Efficiency of Decision Making in the NICE Single Technology Appraisal Process," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 3(3), pages 403-410, September.
    14. Lisa Masucci & Jaclyn Beca & Mona Sabharwal & Jeffrey S. Hoch, 2017. "Methodological Issues in Economic Evaluations Submitted to the Pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR)," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 1(4), pages 255-263, December.
    15. Shafrin, Jason & Skornicki, Michelle & Brauer, Michelle & Villeneuve, Julie & Lees, Michael & Hertel, Nadine & Penrod, John R. & Jansen, Jeroen, 2018. "An exploratory case study of the impact of expanding cost-effectiveness analysis for second-line nivolumab for patients with squamous non-small cell lung cancer in Canada: Does it make a difference?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(6), pages 607-613.
    16. Pieter Baal & Alec Morton & David Meltzer & Werner Brouwer, 2019. "Future unrelated medical costs need to be considered in cost effectiveness analysis," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(1), pages 1-5, February.
    17. Fischer, Katharina Elisabeth & Heisser, Thomas & Stargardt, Tom, 2016. "Health benefit assessment of pharmaceuticals: An international comparison of decisions from Germany, England, Scotland and Australia," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(10), pages 1115-1122.
    18. Peter Ghijben & Yuanyuan Gu & Emily Lancsar & Silva Zavarsek, 2018. "Revealed and Stated Preferences of Decision Makers for Priority Setting in Health Technology Assessment: A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 323-340, March.
    19. Cynthia P. Iglesias & Alexander Thompson & Wolf H. Rogowski & Katherine Payne, 2016. "Reporting Guidelines for the Use of Expert Judgement in Model-Based Economic Evaluations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(11), pages 1161-1172, November.
    20. Carlos K. H. Wong & Brian H. H. Lang & Vivian Y. W. Guo & Cindy L. K. Lam, 2016. "Possible Impact of Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) on Decision Making for Cancer Screening in Hong Kong: A Systematic Review," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 14(6), pages 647-657, December.

    More about this item

    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:pharmo:v:3:y:2019:i:4:d:10.1007_s41669-019-0142-3. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.