Search

Aim: Insufficient adherence to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening impedes individual and population health benefits, with about one-third of individuals non-adherent to available screening options. The impact of poor adherence is inadequately considered in most health economics models, limiting the evaluation of real-world population-level screening outcomes. This study introduces the CAN-SCREEN (Colorectal cANcer SCReening Economics and adherENce) model, utilizing real-world adherence scenarios to assess the effectiveness of a blood-based test (BBT) compared to existing strategies., Materials and Methods: The CAN-SCREEN model evaluates various CRC screening strategies per 1,000 screened individuals for ages 45-75. Adherence is modeled in two ways: (1) full adherence and (2) longitudinally declining adherence. BBT performance is based on recent pivotal trial data while existing strategies are informed using literature. The full adherence model is calibrated using previously published Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) models. Outcomes, including life-years gained (LYG), CRC cases averted, CRC deaths averted, and colonoscopies, are compared to no screening., Results: Longitudinal adherence modeling reveals differences in the relative ordering of health outcomes and resource utilization, as measured by the number of colonoscopies performed per 1,000, between screening modalities. BBT outperforms the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and the multitarget stool DNA (mtsDNA) test with more CRC deaths averted (13) compared to FIT and mtsDNA (7, 11), more CRC cases averted (27 vs. 16, 22) and higher LYG (214 vs. 157, 199). BBT yields fewer CRC deaths averted compared to colonoscopy (13, 15) but requires fewer colonoscopies (1,053 vs. 1,928)., Limitations: Due to limited data, the CAN-SCREEN model with longitudinal adherence leverages evidence-informed assumptions for the natural history and real-world longitudinal adherence to screening., Conclusions: The CAN-SCREEN model demonstrates that amongst non-invasive CRC screening strategies, those with higher adherence yield more favorable health outcomes as measured by CRC deaths averted, CRC cases averted, and LYG.

Aim: Hemophilia A is a genetic, chronic disorder classified by deficient or defective coagulation factor VIII (FVIII) that puts those affected at risk for spontaneous bleeding episodes, which lead to joint damage and chronic pain over time. Currently, most severe hemophilia A patients are treated with prophylactic FVIII, which requires costly and frequent infusions and life-long adherence to medication. A gene therapy (valoctocogene roxaparvovec) is currently in development for the treatment of severe hemophilia A. This model assessed the potential cost-effectiveness of treating patients with valoctocogene roxaparvovec rather than prophylactic therapy. Materials and methods: We developed an individual-based, state-transition microsimulation model for assessing the likely cost-effectiveness of valoctocogene roxaparvovec compared to prophylactic FVIII. Men aged 30 with severe hemophilia A were modeled over a lifetime horizon, and costs were reported from the perspective of the United States health care system. Through microsimulation, patient-level heterogeneity was captured in starting weight, starting Pettersson score (PS), durability of valoctocogene roxaparvovec, and annual bleed rate (ABR). Results: The model projects that treatment with single-administration valoctocogene roxaparvovec would be cost-saving to people with hemophilia A at a price point comparable to other currently available gene therapy products due to its potential to reduce FVIII utilization, direct medical costs, lifetime bleeds, and accumulated joint damage. Limitations: The model relies upon evidence-based assumptions for clinical inputs due to limited data availability. Such uncertainty was mitigated by modeling heterogeneity across the population, specifically with regards to long-term gene therapy durability, lifetime bleed rates, and joint damage progression. Conclusion: Valoctocogene roxaparvovec was found to be cost-saving-on average by about $6.8 million per patient-and more effective than prophylactic therapy for treatment of hemophilia A. The comparative benefit of gene therapy was observed across a broad range of simulated patients that were representative of the real-world severe hemophilia A population.