Bindra Jas, Chopra Ishveen, Hayes Kyle, Niewoehner John, Panaccio Mary P, Wan George J
Falcon Research Group, North Potomac, Maryland.
Manticore Consultancy, Bethesda, Maryland.
J Health Econ Outcomes Res. 2025 Aug 6;12(2):50-61. doi: 10.36469/001c.142078. eCollection 2025.
Proteinuria, a critical marker of glomerulosclerosis, poses a challenge in idiopathic membranous nephropathy (iMN), particularly when standard treatments fail. Acthar® Gel, a US Food and Drug Administration-approved treatment option, may offer an alternative for managing refractory proteinuria in nephrotic syndrome (NS) due to iMN where multiple treatments have failed. The cost per response of Acthar® Gel vs standard of care (SoC; cyclophosphamide or rituximab) for treatment of proteinuria in NS due to iMN was evaluated among adults who had failed multiple treatments from a US payer perspective over a 1- to 3-year horizon. A probabilistic, cohort-level state-transition model simulated patient progression through various health states using 6-month cycles. Patients began in a relapse phase and received either Acthar® Gel or SoC. Transition probabilities determined whether patients achieved a response, experienced no response, progressed to renal failure, or remained in relapse. Responders could potentially maintain their response or relapse, while nonresponders risked renal failure, with potential mortality from any state. Clinical, healthcare resource utilization, and cost data were derived from published literature. Drug prices were based on wholesale acquisition costs. Over 1 year, Acthar® Gel showed a lower cost per response ( 551 687) and rituximab ($741 373). This cost advantage of Acthar® Gel was maintained over 2 and 3 years. Acthar® Gel had higher drug acquisition costs than cyclophosphamide and rituximab but resulted in lower overall medical costs and higher response rates within 1 year, without additional treatment-related costs. Over 2 and 3 years, Acthar® Gel had a lower overall cost of care and higher response rates than SoC, establishing it as a dominant treatment option. Based on current model assumptions and clinical inputs, Acthar® Gel may potentially be a cost-effective and value-based treatment strategy vs unapproved SoCs for adults with refractory proteinuria in NS due to iMN, particularly for those who have not responded to conventional therapies over a 1- to 3-year period within a US payer context. These results may inform clinical and payer decision-making in cases when other standard therapies fail to achieve desired outcomes for a specific population.
蛋白尿是肾小球硬化的关键标志物,在特发性膜性肾病(iMN)中是一个挑战,尤其是在标准治疗失败时。Acthar® Gel是一种经美国食品药品监督管理局批准的治疗选择,对于因iMN导致的肾病综合征(NS)中难治性蛋白尿的管理,在多种治疗均失败的情况下可能提供一种替代方案。从美国医保支付方的角度,在1至3年的时间范围内,对因iMN导致NS的成年患者中,Acthar® Gel与标准治疗(SoC;环磷酰胺或利妥昔单抗)治疗蛋白尿的每例缓解成本进行了评估。一个概率性的队列水平状态转换模型使用6个月的周期模拟患者在各种健康状态下的进展。患者从复发阶段开始,接受Acthar® Gel或SoC治疗。转换概率决定患者是否实现缓解、无反应、进展至肾衰竭或仍处于复发状态。缓解者可能维持缓解或复发,而无反应者有肾衰竭风险,任何状态下都有潜在死亡风险。临床、医疗资源利用和成本数据来自已发表的文献。药品价格基于批发采购成本。在1年时间里,Acthar® Gel显示出每例缓解成本更低(551,687美元),低于环磷酰胺(741,687美元)和利妥昔单抗(741,373美元)。Acthar® Gel的这种成本优势在2年和3年时得以维持。Acthar® Gel的药品采购成本高于环磷酰胺和利妥昔单抗,但在1年内导致总体医疗成本更低且缓解率更高,且无额外的治疗相关成本。在2年和3年时,Acthar® Gel的总体护理成本更低且缓解率高于SoC,使其成为一种占优的治疗选择。基于当前的模型假设和临床输入,与未获批的SoC相比,对于因iMN导致NS的难治性蛋白尿成年患者,Acthar® Gel可能是一种具有成本效益和基于价值的治疗策略,特别是对于那些在美国医保支付方背景下1至3年内对传统疗法无反应的患者。这些结果可能为特定人群中其他标准疗法未能达到预期结果时的临床和医保支付方决策提供参考。