Background: Spinal muscular atrophy type 1 (SMA1) is a devastating genetic disease for which gene-replacement therapy may bring substantial survival and quality of life benefits. Objective: This study investigated the cost-effectiveness of onasemnogene abeparvovec (AVXS-101) gene-replacement therapy for SMA1. Study design: A Markov model was used to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as cost/quality-adjusted life year ($/QALY), of AVXS-101 versus nusinersen over a lifetime. Survival, healthcare costs and QALYs were estimated using natural history data for SMA patients who achieved motor milestones (sitting/walking). Health utility weights were obtained from the CHERISH trial. Setting: USA; commercial payer perspective Participants: SMA1 infants Interventions: AVXS-101 was compared to nusinersen. Main outcome measure: The primary outcome was the ICER. Results: Expected survival (undiscounted) over a lifetime predicted by the model was 37.20 life years for AVXS-101 and 9.68 for nusinersen (discounted QALYs, 15.65 and 5.29, respectively).

Background : Recent cost-utility analysis (CUA) models for onasemnogene abeparvovec (Zolgensma®, formerly AVXS-101) in spinal muscular atrophy type 1 (SMA1) differ on key assumptions and results. Objective : To compare the manufacturer’s proprietary CUA model to the model published by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), and to update the manufacturer’s model with long-term follow-up data and some key ICER assumptions. Study design : We updated a recent CUA evaluating value for money in cost per incremental Quality-adjusted Life Year (QALY) of onasemnogene abeparvovec versus nusinersen (Spinraza®) or best supportive care (BSC) in symptomatic SMA1 patients, and compared it to the ICER model. Setting/Perspective : USA/Commercial payer Participants : Children aged <2 years with SMA1. Interventions : Onasemnogene abeparvovec, a single-dose gene replacement therapy, versus nusinersen, an antisense oligonucleotide, versus BSC. Main outcome measure : Incremental-cost effectiveness ratio and value-based price using traditional thresholds for general medicines in the US. Results : Updated survival (undiscounted) predicted by the model was 37.60 years for onasemnogene abeparvovec compared to 12.10 years for nusinersen and 7.27 years for BSC. Updated quality-adjusted survival using ICER’s utility scores and discounted at 3% were 13.33, 2.85, and 1.15 discounted QALYs for onasemnogene abeparvovec, nusinersen, and BSC, respectively. Using estimated net prices, the discounted lifetime cost/patient was $3.93 M for onasemnogene abeparvovec, $4.60 M for nusinersen, and $1.96 M for BSC. The incremental cost per QALY gained for onasemnogene abeparvovec was dominant against nusinersen and $161,648 against BSC. These results broadly align with the results of the ICER model, which predicted a cost per QALY gained of $139,000 compared with nusinersen, and $243,000 compared with BSC (assuming a placeholder price of $2 M for onasemnogene abeparvovec), differences in methodology notwithstanding. Exploratory analyses in presymptomatic patients were similar. Conclusion : This updated CUA model is similar to ICER analyses comparing onasemnogene abeparvovec with nusinersen in the symptomatic and presymptomatic SMA populations. At a list price of $2.125 M, onasemnogene abeparvovec is cost-effective compared to nusinersen for SMA1 patients treated before age 2 years. When compared to BSC, cost per QALY of onasemnogene abeparvovec is higher than commonly used thresholds for therapies in the USA ($150,000 per QALY).

PURPOSE eHealth literacy, or the ability to seek, find, understand, and appraise health information from electronic sources, has become increasingly relevant in the era of COVID-19, when so many aspects of patient care became dependent on technology. We aimed to understand eHealth literacy among a diverse sample of patients with cancer and discuss ways for health systems and cancer centers to ensure that all patients have access to high-quality care. METHODS A cross-sectional survey of patients with cancer and caregivers was conducted at an NCI-designated cancer center to assess access to the Internet, smartphone ownership, use of mobile apps, willingness to engage remotely with the health care team, and use of the patient portal. Descriptive statistics and bivariate analyses were used to assess frequencies and significant differences between variables. RESULTS Of 363 participants, 55% (n = 201) were female, 71% (n = 241) identified as non-Hispanic White, and 29% (n = 85) reported that their highest level of education was a high school diploma. Most (90%, n = 323) reported having access to the Internet and most (82%, n = 283) reported owning a smartphone. Younger patients or those with a college degree were significantly more likely to own a smartphone, access health information online, know how to download an app on their own, have an interest in communicating with their health care team remotely, or have an account on the electronic patient portal. CONCLUSION As cancer centers increasingly engage patients through electronic and mobile applications, patients with low or limited digital literacy may be excluded, exacerbating current cancer health disparities. Patient-, provider- and system-level technology barriers must be understood and mitigated.

No abstract

No abstract