Cost-Effectiveness of Avatrombopag for the Treatment of Thrombocytopenia in Patients with Chronic Liver Disease

Background: Patients with chronic liver disease (CLD) often have severe thrombocytopenia (platelet counts <50,000/mL) that can complicate the invasive diagnostic and therapeutic procedures these patients require as part of their clinical management, due to the increased bleeding risk. Avatrombopag is a thrombopoietin receptor agonist (TPO-RA) that is approved for the treatment of thrombocytopenia in patients with CLD as an alternative to platelet transfusions for patients undergoing a procedure. The aim of this study was to evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of avatrombopag compared with platelet transfusion or treatment with lusutrombopag, another TPO-RA also approved for the treatment of thrombocytopenia in adult patients with CLD.

Methods: A decision-tree model was developed from a US payer perspective to capture the clinical events observed in registration trials, and to project potential longer-term complications resulting from a major bleed or thromboembolic event in the scenario analyses. Treatment costs were taken from publicly available data sources; avatrombopag and lusutrombopag estimates were calculated from the US prescribing information and Phase 3 study data. The interventions were evaluated in the overall trial population, patients with platelet counts <50,000/mL, and in subpopulations with higher (>40,000/mL to <50,000/mL) and lower (<40,000/mL) Baseline platelet counts. The primary metric for this economic analysis was the per-person total cost, the cost of prophylactic platelet transfusions required, and the incremental cost per prophylactic platelet transfusion avoided.

Results: In the overall population, avatrombopag reduced the need for platelet transfusions and produced cost-savings per person compared to Intended Platelet Transfusion (80% fewer prophylactic platelet transfusions), resulting in a relative cost savings of $4,250. The cost for lusutrombopag (15% more platelet transfusions) relative to avatrombopag was $5,819 higher than the cost of avatrombopag. Similar results were seen in both the higher and lower platelet count subgroups. The one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that the use of avatrombopag remained cost-saving over a wide range of changes in input variables, with the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio falling into quadrant IV (decreased costs while prophylactic platelet transfusions were avoided).

Conclusions: From the cost-effectiveness standpoint, the use of avatrombopag is a practical strategy compared with the cost of both platelet transfusion and lusutrombopag, as it saves costs and reduces the need for prophylactic platelet transfusions.

Table

View largeDownload slide

Table

View largeDownload slide

Close modal