Economical comparison of APCC vs. rFVIIa for mild-to-moderate bleeding episodes in haemophilia patients with inhibitors

To construct a cost‐minimization model comparing activated prothrombin complex concentrates (APCC) vs. recombinant factor VIIa (rFVIIa) in haemophilia patients with inhibitors from a US third party payer perspective. A literature‐based decision model was used to model inhibitor treatment costs and outcomes. As existing clinical trials fail to demonstrate differences in the relative efficacy or safety of APCC vs. rFVIIa, we assumed the same efficacy for both products in the base‐case. Regimens of APCC (75 IU kg−1 × 2 doses) and rFVIIa (90 μg kg−1 × 3 doses) were assumed according to manufacturer recommendations. If the first‐line treatment failed, patients chose to continue the current treatment or switch to another drug. All costs were adjusted to 2009 US dollars. Sensitivity analyses on the infusion frequency, efficacy, unit price, switch rate, re‐bleed rate and body weight were performed to assess model robustness. In the base‐case, the total medical cost to treat a bleed with APCC or rFVIIa as first‐line medication was US$25 969 and US$35 838, respectively. One‐way sensitivity analyses showed that results were insensitive to the efficacy of rFVIIa, unit price of APCC or rFVIIa, switch rate, re‐bleed rate or body weight. The rFVIIa will reach cost neutrality when the efficacy of APCC is as low as 60%, or rFVIIa is infused only twice for each line, or APCC is infused three times for each line. Two‐way sensitivity analyses showed that results were quite sensitive to the assumed infusion frequency for both products. First‐line APCC compared with rFVIIa can be a cost‐saving alternative for home treatment of mild‐to‐moderate bleeds in haemophilia patients with inhibitors.