Presentation (CTI)

OBJECTIVES: To estimate annual treatment acquisition costs and conduct a cost minimization comparison of drug consumption between octocog alfa (Brand Kovaltry®) and emicizumab for prophylaxis in patients with hemophilia A without inhibitors in El Salvador, Panamá, Peru, Ecuador and Guatemala
METHODS: A cost minimization analysis was conducted from a payer perspective over one year, comparing dosing of octocog alfa to emicizumab for Year 1 and Year 2 separately. The analysis assumes equivalent clinical effectiveness for prophylactic indications, focusing on drug acquisition costs. Number of patients with hemophilia A without inhibitors were sourced from prevalence reported in World Federation of Hemophilia (WFH) report and the High-Cost Account Hemophilia 2024 Report for Colombia was using for stratified by age. Mean body weights were obtained from nutrition surveys for each country, and dosing inputs were derived from pooled analysis of LEOPOLD 1, 2 and extension studies for octocog alfa and HAVEN 3 study for emicizumab. Costs were converted to USD using specific conversion rates for each currency
RESULTS: The analysis provides a comparison of annual drug acquisition costs (USD) per patient and at the population level for octocog alfa versus emicizumab. Sensitivity and scenario analyses address uncertainties related to key inputs, such as patient weight and factor VIII or emicizumab consumption. The results show that octocog alfa leads to savings of 70% to 89% in Year 1 compared to emicizumab for all countries except Ecuador that shows savings around 57%. In Year 2, savings range from 68% to 88% in all countries except Ecuador that shows savings around 53%.
CONCLUSIONS: The cost minimization analysis indicates that octocog alfa is a cost-saving alternative, offering over 65% annual cost savings compared to emicizumab in El Salvador, Panamá, Peru and Guatemala and. In the case of Ecuador, offering over 50% annual cost savings compared to emicizumab