View
397
Download
3
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Prof. Milan Macek. Professor of Medical and Molecular Genetics Chairman of Department of Biology and Medical Genetics Division of Clinical Molecular Genetics and the National Cystic Fibrosis Centre- University Hospital Motol and 2nd School of Medicine -Charles University Prague- Czech Republic. ----- There is an increasing need to manage cost-effectiveness issues of novel or relatively expensive technologies that are currently in use or being proposed for the treatment of rare diseases. Cystic fibrosis (CF), where so called „CFTR modulating therapies“ rendered by several novel orphan medicinal products (e.g. ivacaftor, lumacaftor) are rapidly being introduced into clinical practice, will be used as a model. Health-economic evaluations of rising pharmacotherapeutic costs, as the major driver of overall cost, have to be part of the cost analysis of chronic and progressive (rare) diseases like CF that may require lifelong therapy. Total costs include not only direct healthcare costs but also the cost of lost productivity by both patients and family caregivers. When considering the results of cost-effectiveness analysis of new technologies associated with the management of CF, it is unreasonable to expect that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio to be less than the generally applied thresholds (willingness to pay) for other common diseases. This issue is further compounded by mutation specific therapies for a subset of the overal cohort of CF patients. Therefore, when assessing CF and other rare diseases, such analyses should include complex health technology assessment approaches, which evaluate comparative treatment effectiveness (novel and established), as well as wider social benefits and ethical aspects. We will present the experience of the Prague CF center in terms of costs of illness studies and pharmacoeconomical approaches to studying children and adolescents with this disease.
Citation preview
Cost of illness studies in rare diseases: cystic fibrosis as an example
Prof. Milan Macek, M.D, D.Sc.
Department of Biology and Medical Genetics
Charles University Prague – 2nd Faculty of Medicine
Barcelona, Val d´ Hebron VHIR– November 18, 2014
25 years of CF
research
How to apply this success in
clinical practice
in the time of austerity ?
Technology
development
&
„Interpretive
Gap“
FORGE
Canada
2014
Phenotype
PMID: 24906018 PMID: 24387988
The challenge
• Over 4700 Mendelian phenotypes with known causative gene (OMIM.org, NGS panels)
• Allelic heterogeneity is the rule
– Many genes have >100 mutations
• Disease implications
– Known (usually) for common mutations
– Variably known for low frequency mutations (<5%)
– Unknown (usually) for rare mutations (<1%)
• Clinical diagnostic DNA sequencing identifies all 3 types of mutation
Need for accurate assessment of disease-liability of mutations
• Diagnosis of clinical cases
• Newborn screening
• Carrier screening
–Pregnancy decisions
• Mutation-specific therapy
(CFTR modulating therapies)
• Molecular genetics – Mutation Specific Therapies – CFTR modulating therapies
CFTR mutations
• Over 2000 mutations identified
– One mutation is common (p.Phe508del; 70% of CF alleles)
– Twenty mutations are low frequency (15% of CF alleles)
– Remainder (>1800) are rare (15% of CF alleles)
• Disease implications of most rare mutations is unknown
Clinical variant annotation the next challenge in medical genomics:
Mutation versus Variant
PMID: 24387988
Databases
S549R
CFTR modulating therapy: mutation classes
Gating defect mutations: S549R (T>G) and G551D
„Potentiators versus Correctors“
J Cyst Fibros. 2012 May;11(3):237-45
Clinic
Laboratory
Repository
Collection of mutation data
Clinic
Laboratory
Collection of mutation data
39,689 patients> 2000 mutations
Contributors to CFTR2
Summary of data collected
Clinical data analysis35,319 patients
Lung function(FEV1% predicted)24,946 patientsb
Sweat chloride(mmol/L)
24,913 patientsa
Pancreatic status(PS or PI)
30,236 patientsc
CFTR2 database39,689 patients; 25 clinics/registries
159 mutationswith allele
frequency ≥0.01%
4,377 patients (5 registries/clinics) excluded*
Genotype70,777
chromosomes
Clinically consistent mutationAverage sweat [Cl-] ≥ 60 mEq/L
Genetically consistent mutationMutation not seen in non-transmitted
‘healthy’ CFTR gene in father of CF patient
CF-causing mutationNon-disease causing
How did we determine which mutations cause CF and which ones don’t?
A 3-pronged approach for assigning disease liability
Functionally consistent mutation
< 10% of WT CFTR function
Genetically inconsistent mutationMutation found on non-transmitted ‘healthy’
CFTR gene in father of CF patient
Improved clinical care: CFTR2.org
99
54%
87%90%
97
18 18
53%
Sweat Chloride
Pancreatic insufficiency
Average Age
Lung function
Improved education via publically available apps: CFGeneE
D11
52
H
F1
05
2V
WT
R117C R117H*
D579G
S549R*R1070W*
R347PS945L
P67L
I336K L206W
A455ED614G
R1066H
P205S
G85E0
20
40
60
80
100
1 10 100
CFT
R f
old
ing
(as
% o
f W
T)
Log CFTR chloride current (as % of WT)
T338I
L927P
G1244E
S341P
G551D
R3
34
W*
S549N
G970R
R3
52
Q
G178R
R3
47
H*
S1
25
1N
*
S997F
*
D11
0H
Channel defect
Folding and
channel defect
#
Folding defect
Mutations in red are
potentiated by
Ivacaftor/Kalydeco
Mutations cluster by ‘theratype’
Mutation in blue
responds to corrector
(VX-809)
VX-770, Ivacaftor – in vitro studies
VX-770, Ivacaftor – sweat chloride
VX-770, Ivacaftor – FEV1
KalydecoTm – mutation specific therapy in CF„CFTR modulating therapy“
Ultra-Orphan drug
for ~ 4% of CF patients
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pulmonology/CysticFibrosis/42018
2012 2013
http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2012/12/27/the-most-important-new-drug-of-2012/
Courtesy Dr. Wills Hughes-Wilson
Increase costs in oncology using „biological therapy“
„End of Life“ versus „Life Saving Therapies“
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Issue%20Brief/2012/Jan/1576_Chalkidou_
end_of_life_drugs_Intl_brief.pdf
Health care
Versus
Social care
Savings?
Different bugets?
Redistribution of
insurance
„Generics dividend“…. Will it shitt towards orphan medicinal products?
Background• Analysis of the economic burden in CF is important for disease management
• Assessment of baseline (direct) costs prior to the introduction of CFTRmodulating therapies for health insurance companies
• Assessment of cost effectivness and implemenation of CF treatment schemes
Klimeš et al. ERS Monogr 2014; 64: 304–319
Objectives
• To assess the direct costs of CF within the CZ medical care
• The prevalence-based cost of illness analysis was performed in relation previously identified „major cost drivers“:
– severity of CF lung disease (measured by FEV1 % predicted)
– Age / gender
– BMI (reflecting underweight = general nutritional status)
– Presence of chronic sino-bronchial infections (P. aeruginosa)
Patients and Methods
• Clinical and laboratory data from the national CF registry (www.cfregistr.cz)
• Cost data from the health insurance (www.vzp.cz, www.szpcr.cz)
• Overall, 245 CF randomly selected patients were stratified by their age, gender, BMI and BMI z-score, P. aeruginosa and FEV1% (“mild” >70; „moderate 40< and <70 and severe CF lung disease <40; % predicted)
• Healthcare costs were considered within: a) inpatient care, b) medicinal products and devices (MPD) and c) Procedures (laboratory examinations, diagnostics and outpatient care)
• All costs were in year 2010 prices
• Descriptive statistics, Multivariate regression analysis (generalized linear model – GLM)
• The average (median) patient age was 16.46 (15.0) and 34.7% were adults (older than 18 years)
• The average (median) FEV1% was 86.8% (94.0%): 76.7% patients had mild-, 14.3% moderate- and 9% severe- CF lung disease
• A total of 23.3% cases were chronically colonized with P. aeruginosa.
• The mean (median) costs of mild, moderate and severe lung disease were €3,804 (€1,069), €5,825 (€1,271), and €13,929 (€6,197)
• Patients with P. aeruginosa had substantially higher costs than those without proven infection (€3,455 vs. €10,105; Mann-Whitney p=0.0001), using ECFS registry classification.
• Costs are mostly clustered around lower monetary values, but have been increasing markedly with decreasing FEV1%
Results - 1
• In regression analysis we used only variables which are related to the direct costs:
– In the case of total costs, disease severity (measured by FEV1%) had the most significant impact on costs, while, for instance, its decrease by approximately 10 percentage points (pp) means an increase in costs by approximately 10%.
– The presence of P. aeruginosa increased the costs by 1.82 x
– Other studied variables (gender, nutritional status and age) did not significantly influence total costs.
• Chronic infection of P. aeruginosa has substantial impact on each cost category (~increased hospitalisation costs)
– inpatient costs were increased by 2.7 times
– MPD cost were increased by 5.8 times
Results - 2
DISCUSSION and Conclusions
• Health care costs and their subsections (for inpatients, MPD, procedures) are predominantly influenced by the overall CF severity reflected by FEV1, and P. aeruginosa.
• Deteriorated nutritional status significantly influences procedure costs (p=0.014).
• the costs presented in our analysis are below those reported in other European countries studies. Even if accounted for different price level (by purchasing power parity (PPP) € exchange rate, average total costs equal to PPP €6,913 (vs. €5,002)
• These data are used for negotiations with health-insurance companies
– Needs further breakdown by e.g. individual drugs utilized, adolescents x adults
– Relatively younger and generally less severe (or better treated) cohort….
Figure 1: Total mean (median) annual costs related to the overall disease
severity (cost in € 2010)
Figure 2: Mean annual costs of each cost component based on the disease
severity (cost in € 2010)