Presentation (CTI)

OBJECTIVES: To estimate annual treatment acquisition costs and conduct a cost minimization comparison of drug consumption between damoctocog alfa pegol and emicizumab for prophylaxis in patients with severe hemophilia A without inhibitors in Colombia, Peru, and Costa Rica. In Costa Rica and Peru, damoctocog alfa pegol does not have regulatory approval, and in Colombia, it does not yet have the indication for patients under 12 years old. The approved label from the EMA and FDA is used in the analysis
METHODS: Cost minimization analysis was conducted from a payer perspective over one year, comparing dosing of damoctocog alfa pegol 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 for severe 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 the PROTECT VIII and HAVEN 3 clinical programs. 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 damoctocog alfa pegol 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 damoctocog alfa pegol leads to savings of 74% to 81% in Year 1 compared to emicizumab. In Year 2, savings range from 72% to 80% in the countries studied
CONCLUSIONS: Cost minimization analysis presented indicates that damoctocog alfa pegol is a cost-saving alternative, offering over 70% annual cost savings compared to emicizumab in Costa Rica, Colombia, and Peru