The California Technology Assessment Forum, an Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) independent committee, found that there was little evidence to distinguish between the impact of C1 inhibitors Cinryze and Haegarda for long-term prophylaxis against hereditary angiodema attacks, according to a press release from ICER.
ICER released its final evidence report on the therapies, including lanadelumab, on Thursday, Nov. 15.
The committee also determined there was insufficient evidence to suggest long-term prophylaxis with lanadelumab “is superior to on-demand therapy alone.”
“Treatment for HAE attacks is very expensive, as are the prophylactic therapies used to prevent such attacks, and so the overall cost of prophylaxis includes the savings incurred from less on-demand treatment,” ICER Chief Medical Officer David Rind said in a statement. “The economic models produced for this report were very sensitive to small changes in assumptions about the frequency of attacks, the amount of on-demand treatment required, and the exact dosing regimens of prophylactic therapy. Similarly, relatively small changes in the price of prophylactic therapy greatly improved its cost-effectiveness. Insurers and manufacturers should work together to achieve appropriate access to these important therapies at a price that patients and society can afford.”
To read the final evidence report, click here.