How Gene Therapy for Rare Diseases Differs from Chronic Therapy: The Case of AADC-Deficiency

Author(s)

Boehnke A1, Minartz C2, Radeck S2, Neubauer A2
1PTC Therapeutics Germany GmbH, Frankfurt, Germany, 2Institute for Health- and Pharmacoeconomics (IfGPh), Muenchen, Germany

OBJECTIVES : To characterize the economic differences of Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMP) therapies versus chronic therapies using the ultra-rare neuropediatric disease Aromatic l-amino acid decarboxylase-deficiency (AADC-d) as an example.

METHODS : Based on a structured literature search performed 5/2020 to 6/2021 relevant literature and statements were identified in Medline, Google, key congresses, and grey literature. Key differences of ATMPs for ultra-rare diseases were analyzed both from healthcare-system and manufacturer perspectives. The example of somatic gene therapy with eladocagene exuparvovec as a potential one-time-treatment for AADC-d is characterized with key clinical data.

RESULTS : From an healthcare-system perspective, 9 key differentiating characteristics for ATMPs in ultra-rare diseases were identified, including high nominal price levels, short-term budgetary concerns, uncertainty of patient numbers whilst facing long term evidence limitation and real-world applicability, confirmation of clinical benefit, extent of profit, multiple and highly specialized treatment center requirements, separate and specific regulatory processes, especially regarding quality and risk management materials as well as general risks of any genetic treatments. From manufacturer perspective, a second 9–point- list of specific relevance to ensure ATMP success was defined including product and market-specific aspects as well as patients’ access to therapy. The example of somatic gene therapy with eladocagene exuparvovec in AADC-d provides 5-year data showing a dramatic effect according to German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG)-definition regarding the motoric endpoint “head control”. The motoric summary scale values (PDMS-2) increase over time in most patients. Especially regarding gene therapies, a 5-year period represents extended follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS : Clinical efficacy, especially of long-term efficacy and safety, are key drivers of achieving value for both, from a healthcare-system´s lens as well as for manufacturers. In addition, the burden of disease for patients and caregivers is fundamental as in the example of the neuropediatric disease AADC-d.

Conference/Value in Health Info

2021-11, ISPOR Europe 2021, Copenhagen, Denmark

Value in Health, Volume 24, Issue 12, S2 (December 2021)

Code

POSC206

Topic

Health Policy & Regulatory

Topic Subcategory

Pricing Policy & Schemes, Reimbursement & Access Policy, Risk-sharing Approaches

Disease

Neurological Disorders, Pediatrics, Personalized and Precision Medicine, Rare and Orphan Diseases

Explore Related HEOR by Topic


Your browser is out-of-date

ISPOR recommends that you update your browser for more security, speed and the best experience on ispor.org. Update my browser now

×