PHARMACOECONOMIC EVALUATION OF DIFFERENT GONADOTROPIN-RELEASING HORMONE ANALOGS IN THE TREATMENT OF CHILDREN WITH CENTRAL PRECOCIOUS PUBERTY IN CHINA
Author(s)
Linlin Cao, Master1, Ling Hou, PhD2, Yan Sun, PhD3, Qiuli Chen, PhD4, Yongbo Gao, Master5, Chunxiu Gong, PhD6.
1Pharmacy College of Zhejiang Pharmaceutical University, Ningbo, China, 2Department of Pediatrics, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China, 3Department of Pediatric Endocrinology, Shandong Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong First Medical University, Jinan, China, 4The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China, 5HEOR Associate Manager, Takeda (China) International Trading Company, Beijing, China, 6Department of Endocrinology, Genetics, Metabolism and Adolescent Medicine, National Center for Children’s Health, Beijing Children’s Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
1Pharmacy College of Zhejiang Pharmaceutical University, Ningbo, China, 2Department of Pediatrics, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China, 3Department of Pediatric Endocrinology, Shandong Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong First Medical University, Jinan, China, 4The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China, 5HEOR Associate Manager, Takeda (China) International Trading Company, Beijing, China, 6Department of Endocrinology, Genetics, Metabolism and Adolescent Medicine, National Center for Children’s Health, Beijing Children’s Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the costs and benefits of three gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogs (GnRHa), leuprorelin acetate 11.25 mg 3-month (3M) depot, leuprorelin acetate 3.75 mg 1-month (1M) depot, and triptorelin 3.75 mg 1-month (1M) depot for the treatment of central precocious puberty children in China.
METHODS: A 4-year cost-minimization analysis model was developed from the societal, healthcare provider, patient, and payer perspectives. Costs included direct medical costs, direct non-medical costs, and indirect costs, costs were discounted at an annual rate of 4.5%. Model inputs were obtained from published literature, public websites, and clinical expert interviews. Deterministic sensitivity analysis was conducted to assess the robustness of the model results.
RESULTS: Compared with patients treated with leuprorelin-1M and triptorelin-1M, those receiving leuprorelin-3M had 29.6 fewer hospital visits and injections over 4 years. Leuprorelin‑3M was also associated with lower drug costs ($4,132 vs. $5,340 vs. $5,870), treatment and examination fees ($351 vs. $521 vs. $521), storage costs ($0 vs. $1 vs. $0), injection costs ($3 vs. $48 vs. $48), direct non-medical costs ($899 vs. $2,696 vs. $2,696), and indirect costs ($586 vs. $1,757 vs. $1,757), in the order of leuprorelin-3M, leuprorelin-1M, triptorelin-1M. Over the 4-year study period, treatment with leuprorelin-3M resulted in total cost savings of $4,393 (vs. leuprorelin-1M) and $4,922 (vs. triptorelin-1M) from the societal perspective, and yielded cost savings from other perspectives. Meanwhile, leuprorelin-3M saved 36.7 minutes of drug preparation time for medical staff and reduced personnel injuries caused by ampoule breakage. Deterministic sensitivity analysis indicated that the most influential factors were the annual visit frequencies of leuprorelin-1M, triptorelin-1M, and leuprorelin-3M.
CONCLUSIONS: Leuprorelin-3M has economic advantages over leuprorelin-1M and triptorelin-1M by reducing the number of hospital visits and lowering treatment costs, benefiting multiple parties including healthcare providers, patients and payers.
METHODS: A 4-year cost-minimization analysis model was developed from the societal, healthcare provider, patient, and payer perspectives. Costs included direct medical costs, direct non-medical costs, and indirect costs, costs were discounted at an annual rate of 4.5%. Model inputs were obtained from published literature, public websites, and clinical expert interviews. Deterministic sensitivity analysis was conducted to assess the robustness of the model results.
RESULTS: Compared with patients treated with leuprorelin-1M and triptorelin-1M, those receiving leuprorelin-3M had 29.6 fewer hospital visits and injections over 4 years. Leuprorelin‑3M was also associated with lower drug costs ($4,132 vs. $5,340 vs. $5,870), treatment and examination fees ($351 vs. $521 vs. $521), storage costs ($0 vs. $1 vs. $0), injection costs ($3 vs. $48 vs. $48), direct non-medical costs ($899 vs. $2,696 vs. $2,696), and indirect costs ($586 vs. $1,757 vs. $1,757), in the order of leuprorelin-3M, leuprorelin-1M, triptorelin-1M. Over the 4-year study period, treatment with leuprorelin-3M resulted in total cost savings of $4,393 (vs. leuprorelin-1M) and $4,922 (vs. triptorelin-1M) from the societal perspective, and yielded cost savings from other perspectives. Meanwhile, leuprorelin-3M saved 36.7 minutes of drug preparation time for medical staff and reduced personnel injuries caused by ampoule breakage. Deterministic sensitivity analysis indicated that the most influential factors were the annual visit frequencies of leuprorelin-1M, triptorelin-1M, and leuprorelin-3M.
CONCLUSIONS: Leuprorelin-3M has economic advantages over leuprorelin-1M and triptorelin-1M by reducing the number of hospital visits and lowering treatment costs, benefiting multiple parties including healthcare providers, patients and payers.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2026-05, ISPOR 2026, Philadelphia, PA, USA
Value in Health, Volume 29, Issue S6
Code
EE164
Topic
Economic Evaluation
Topic Subcategory
Cost/Cost of Illness/Resource Use Studies
Disease
SDC: Diabetes/Endocrine/Metabolic Disorders (including obesity), SDC: Pediatrics