OBJECTIVES: Recent approval of once-weekly somatrogon for Growth Hormone Deficiency (GHD) treatment in paediatric patients has provided an opportunity to assess its economic impact compared to already available once-daily somatropin. This research aims to determine the cost-effectiveness of weekly somatrogon compared to daily somatropin from Sandoz for the treatment of paediatric GHD, from the perspective of payers in Germany and the United Kingdom (UK).

METHODS: A three-state Markov model was developed to analyse the cost-effectiveness of treatment for GHD with somatrogon versus somatropin. Data on the 1-year efficacy of somatrogon was obtained from published literature. Data from the PATRO registry was utilised to model the efficacy of daily somatropin and to extrapolate treatment effects of somatrogon beyond 1 year. Drug costs were calculated from published list prices of somatrogon and somatropin. Other treatment costs were assumed to be equal for both treatments. Parametric uncertainty was assessed through one-way (OWSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA).

RESULTS: In Germany, 7 years of treatment with weekly somatrogon compared with daily somatropin from Sandoz resulted in incremental QALY gains of 0.5, an incremental cost of €95,499, and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €190,430 at a 3.0% discount over the lifetime. Similarly in the UK, weekly somatrogon gained 0.54 QALY with an incremental cost of £27,991 and an ICER of £51,957 at a 3.5% discount over the lifetime. Compared to an assumed willingness-to-pay of €20,000 in Germany and £20,000 in the UK, the probability of somatrogon being cost-effective was 9.0% in Germany and 23.0% in the UK. OWSA showed that the height velocity and utility had the highest impact on the ICER results.

CONCLUSIONS: From a German and the UK payer perspective, once-weekly somatrogon for the treatment of paediatric GHD, compared to somatropin from Sandoz, was unlikely to be cost-effective.