Key Takeaways
- ICER’s report confirms that tafamidis, acoramidis, and vutrisiran provide significant health benefits for transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy (ATTR-CM).
- ICER suggests pricing tafamidis and acoramidis between $13,600 and $39,000 per year for cost-effectiveness.
- The report highlights the need for equitable healthcare access and fair pricing aligned with therapeutic value.
The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) has released its Final Evidence Report on the effectiveness and value of three key treatments for transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy (ATTR-CM): tafamidis (Vyndamax®/Vyndaqel®), acoramidis, and vutrisiran (Amvuttra®). The evaluation, which was presented at ICER’s Midwest CEPAC meeting in September 2024, assessed the clinical and economic value of these therapies compared to no disease-specific treatment. The report confirms that all three treatments show significant health benefits, but raises concerns about their pricing, particularly for tafamidis.
ICER’s Chief Medical Officer, Dr. David Rind, emphasized that while tafamidis and the other drugs offer substantial clinical benefits, the current pricing of tafamidis—at around $268,000 per year—is much higher than the calculated value benchmarks. ICER’s analysis estimates that for tafamidis and acoramidis to be cost-effective, prices should range between $13,600 and $39,000 per year. The report also highlights that while adding vutrisiran to tafamidis shows potential, the evidence does not clearly support this combination therapy’s net health benefits compared to tafamidis alone, making the current pricing concerns more pressing.
Clinical Effectiveness and Economic Considerations of ATTR-CM Therapies
During ICER’s assessment, the independent panel unanimously agreed that the current evidence is sufficient to demonstrate the net health benefits of tafamidis, acoramidis, and vutrisiran when compared to no disease-specific treatment for ATTR-CM. However, when it came to comparing the therapies directly, the panel concluded that evidence was insufficient to show a clear advantage of one over the other. The lack of differentiated evidence on monotherapy outcomes and the combination of tafamidis with vutrisiran points to a need for further research to establish comparative effectiveness and cost-efficiency.
The voting results underscore that while the clinical benefits of these drugs are acknowledged, affordability and pricing remain central issues. For instance, the panel noted that tafamidis, despite its FDA approval for ATTR-CM, represents a “low” long-term value for money when considering its current price. ICER’s value benchmarks for both tafamidis and acoramidis suggest a significant reduction in price is needed for these treatments to meet common cost-effectiveness thresholds. The absence of a set price for acoramidis and vutrisiran, pending FDA approval, leaves room for future negotiation aligned with patient-centered value.
Policy Recommendations and Implications for Stakeholders
ICER’s report not only assesses clinical and economic data but also provides critical recommendations aimed at policymakers, healthcare providers, and pharmaceutical companies. The policy roundtable, which featured clinical experts, patient advocates, and payers, discussed strategies to align pricing with clinical value and ensure broader access to these therapies. The roundtable stressed that healthcare equity must be prioritized, especially for ATTR-CM patients from underserved racial or ethnic groups.
Key policy recommendations include expanding telemedicine services to improve access to specialized care for ATTR-CM patients regardless of geographic constraints. ICER also suggests that clinical societies establish gender- and body-size-adjusted diagnostic standards to better detect and manage ATTR-CM, ensuring that women and smaller patients receive accurate diagnoses. Additionally, ICER advocates for drug manufacturers to set prices that reflect therapeutic value and promote affordability, aligning with the evidence-based health benefit price benchmarks established in the report.
The report emphasizes the need for future research focused on directly comparing the effectiveness of tafamidis, acoramidis, and vutrisiran in similar patient populations. Such studies could provide more clarity on the comparative benefits of these therapies and inform fair pricing strategies that align with their real-world impact on patient health.
Source: The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, October 21, 2024
This article has been prepared with the assistance of AI and reviewed by an editor. For more details, please refer to our Terms and Conditions. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the author.