Pharmacoeconomic Models in Rare Diseases: Methodologies and Case Studies

Miguel Volov^*
*Correspondence: Miguel Volov, Department of Pharmacology, St. Petersburg State Pediatric Medical University, 194100 St. Petersburg, Russia, Email:

Introduction

Pharmacoeconomic models are essential tools in assessing the value of new treatments, especially in the context of rare diseases where traditional economic evaluations often face unique challenges. These models help stakeholders, including policymakers, healthcare providers and patients, understand the cost-effectiveness of interventions in scenarios where the target population is small and the disease burden is high. This article delves into the methodologies used in pharmacoeconomic models for rare diseases and presents case studies that highlight their application and impact. Pharmacoeconomic evaluations in rare diseases require specialized methodologies due to the limited patient population and the high costs associated with developing and providing treatment [1,2].

Description

One of the primary methodologies used is the Cost-Utility Analysis (CUA), which evaluates the cost per Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) gained from an intervention. This approach is particularly useful in rare diseases where the benefits of treatment can be substantial, but the patient population is too small to justify standard economic models. Another important methodology is the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA), which compares the costs and health outcomes of different interventions. In rare diseases, CEA often faces challenges such as small sample sizes and a lack of historical data. To address these issues, models often rely on data from registries, expert opinions and clinical trials. Additionally, decision-analytic models such as Markov models or discrete event simulations are frequently employed to project long-term outcomes and costs based on available evidence.

Markov models are particularly useful for chronic rare diseases where patients undergo different health states over time. These models simulate patient transitions between states such as disease progression, remission, or death and estimate the long-term costs and benefits of treatments. For example, a Markov model might be used to assess the cost-effectiveness of a new gene therapy for a rare genetic disorder by simulating the progression of the disease and the impact of the therapy over a patient’s lifetime. Discrete Event Simulations (DES) offers another approach, particularly useful in complex rare diseases with multiple interacting factors. DES models simulate individual patient experiences and can accommodate variability in disease progression and treatment response. These models are flexible and can incorporate real-world data to reflect patient heterogeneity more accurately [3,4].

They are particularly valuable when dealing with diseases that have highly variable progression patterns or when new treatments are being introduced. In the context of rare diseases, Real-World Evidence (RWE) becomes crucial. Since clinical trials for rare diseases often have small sample sizes and limited follow-up, RWE can provide additional insights into the effectiveness and costs of interventions. Patient registries, observational studies and patient-reported outcomes are sources of RWE that help refine pharmacoeconomic models and provide a more comprehensive assessment of treatment value. One notable case study is the pharmacoeconomic evaluation of Spinraza (nusinersen), a treatment for Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA), a rare genetic disorder. SMA is characterized by severe muscle wasting and weakness and Spinraza represents a significant advancement in its treatment.

A cost-utility analysis of Spinraza revealed that while the drug is expensive, it provides substantial health benefits, leading to a favorable cost-effectiveness ratio when compared to other interventions. The model used data from clinical trials and real-world evidence to estimate the QALYs gained and the associated costs, ultimately demonstrating that Spinraza’s benefits justified its high price in the context of the rare disease it addresses. Another example is the pharmacoeconomic evaluation of Luxturna (voretigene neparvovec), a gene therapy for inherited retinal diseases caused by RPE65 mutations. Luxturna is one of the first gene therapies approved for a rare genetic disorder and its cost-effectiveness has been evaluated using a combination of CEA and CUA methodologies. The analysis incorporated data from clinical trials showing significant improvements in vision and quality of life. The model projected long-term benefits and costs, ultimately supporting the value of Luxturna despite its high upfront cost [5].

These case studies illustrate how pharmacoeconomic models can be tailored to the specific characteristics of rare diseases. They also highlight the importance of incorporating both clinical trial data and real-world evidence to provide a comprehensive evaluation of treatment value. In addition, they demonstrate the need for innovative approaches to address the unique challenges posed by rare diseases, such as small patient populations and high treatment costs. Overall, pharmacoeconomic models play a critical role in assessing the value of new treatments for rare diseases. They provide valuable insights into the cost-effectiveness of interventions and help ensure that healthcare resources are used efficiently. By utilizing methodologies such as cost-utility analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis, Markov models and discrete event simulations, stakeholders can make informed decisions about the allocation of resources for rare disease treatments.

Conclusion

As the field of pharmacoeconomics continues to evolve, ongoing advancements in modeling techniques and data collection will further enhance our ability to evaluate rare disease treatments. The integration of real-world evidence, along with innovative modeling approaches, will be key to addressing the unique challenges of rare diseases and ensuring that patients receive effective and cost-efficient therapies.

Acknowledgement

None.

Conflict of Interest

None.

References

1. Pedersen, Regitze Renee, Volker Krömker, Thomas Bjarnsholt and Kirstin Dahl-Pedersen, et al. "Biofilm research in bovine mastitis." Front Vet Sci 8 (2021): 656810.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

2. Pașca, Claudia, Liviu Alexandru Mărghitaș, Daniel Severus Dezmirean and Ioana Adriana Matei, et al. "Efficacy of natural formulations in bovine mastitis pathology: Alternative solution to antibiotic treatment." J Veter-Res 64 (2020): 523-529.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

3. Abed, Ahmed H., Ahmed MS Menshawy, Mohamed MA Zeinhom and Delower Hossain, et al. "Subclinical mastitis in selected bovine dairy herds in North Upper Egypt: Assessment of prevalence, causative bacterial pathogens, antimicrobial resistance and virulence-associated genes." Microorganisms 9 (2021): 1175.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

4. Zhao, X. and P. Lacasse. "Mammary tissue damage during bovine mastitis: Causes and control." J Anim Sci 86 (2008): 57-65.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

5. Janzen, J. J. "Economic losses resulting from mastitis. A review." J Dairy Sci 53 (1970): 1151-1160.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at