Therapeutic developments in spinal muscular atrophy

Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA), a potentially devastating disease marked by progressive weakness and muscle atrophy resulting from the dysfunction and loss of motor neurons of the spinal cord, has emerged in recent years as an attractive target for therapeutic intervention. Caused by a homozygous mutation to the Survival of Motor Neurons 1 (SMN1) gene on chromosome 5q, the severity of the clinical phenotype in SMA is modulated by the function of a related protein, Survival of Motor Neurons 2 (SMN2). SMN2 predominantly produces an unstable SMN transcript lacking exon 7; only about 10% of the transcription product produces a full-length, functional SMN protein. Several therapeutic strategies have targeted this gene with the goal of producing increased full-length SMN transcript, thereby modifying the underlying mechanism. Drugs that have increased SMN2 function, in vitro, are now explored for potential therapeutic benefit in this disease. Alternative approaches, including neuroprotective, muscle anabolic, gene and cell replacement strategies, also hold promise. The recent advances in preclinical research and the development of a wider range of animal models for SMA continue to provide cautious optimism that effective treatments for SMA will eventually emerge

Cost-effectiveness analysis of using onasemnogene abeparvocec (AVXS-101) in spinal muscular atrophy type 1 patients

Background: Spinal muscular atrophy type 1 (SMA1) is a devastating genetic disease for which gene-replacement therapy may bring substantial survival and quality of life benefits. Objective: This study investigated the cost-effectiveness of onasemnogene abeparvovec (AVXS-101) gene-replacement therapy for SMA1. Study design: A Markov model was used to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as cost/quality-adjusted life year ($/QALY), of AVXS-101 versus nusinersen over a lifetime. Survival, healthcare costs and QALYs were estimated using natural history data for SMA patients who achieved motor milestones (sitting/walking). Health utility weights were obtained from the CHERISH trial. Setting: USA; commercial payer perspective Participants: SMA1 infants Interventions: AVXS-101 was compared to nusinersen. Main outcome measure: The primary outcome was the ICER. Results: Expected survival (undiscounted) over a lifetime predicted by the model was 37.20 life years for AVXS-101 and 9.68 for nusinersen (discounted QALYs, 15.65 and 5.29, respectively). Using a potential AVXS-101 price range ($2.5-5.0M/treatment), the average lifetime cost/patient was $4.2–6.6M for AVXS-101 and$6.3M for nusinersen. The ICER range was (-$203,072) to$31,379 per QALY gained for AVXS-101 versus nusinersen, indicating that AVXS-101 was cost-effective with prices of ≤$5M. Conclusion: Single-dose AVXS-101 was cost-effective compared to chronic nusinersen for SMA1 patients

An updated cost-utility model for onasemnogene abeparvovec (Zolgensma®) in spinal muscular atrophy type 1 patients and comparison with evaluation by the Institute for Clinical and Effectiveness Review (ICER)

Background: Recent cost-utility analysis (CUA) models for onasemnogene abeparvovec (Zolgensma®, formerly AVXS-101) in spinal muscular atrophy type 1 (SMA1) differ on key assumptions and results. Objective: To compare the manufacturer’s proprietary CUA model to the model published by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), and to update the manufacturer’s model with long-term follow-up data and some key ICER assumptions. Study design: We updated a recent CUA evaluating value for money in cost per incremental Quality-adjusted Life Year (QALY) of onasemnogene abeparvovec versus nusinersen (Spinraza®) or best supportive care (BSC) in symptomatic SMA1 patients, and compared it to the ICER model. Setting/Perspective: USA/Commercial payer Participants: Children aged <2 years with SMA1. Interventions: Onasemnogene abeparvovec, a single-dose gene replacement therapy, versus nusinersen, an antisense oligonucleotide, versus BSC. Main outcome measure: Incremental-cost effectiveness ratio and value-based price using traditional thresholds for general medicines in the US. Results: Updated survival (undiscounted) predicted by the model was 37.60 years for onasemnogene abeparvovec compared to 12.10 years for nusinersen and 7.27 years for BSC. Updated quality-adjusted survival using ICER’s utility scores and discounted at 3% were 13.33, 2.85, and 1.15 discounted QALYs for onasemnogene abeparvovec, nusinersen, and BSC, respectively. Using estimated net prices, the discounted lifetime cost/patient was $3.93 M for onasemnogene abeparvovec,$4.60 M for nusinersen, and $1.96 M for BSC. The incremental cost per QALY gained for onasemnogene abeparvovec was dominant against nusinersen and$161,648 against BSC. These results broadly align with the results of the ICER model, which predicted a cost per QALY gained of $139,000 compared with nusinersen, and$243,000 compared with BSC (assuming a placeholder price of $2 M for onasemnogene abeparvovec), differences in methodology notwithstanding. Exploratory analyses in presymptomatic patients were similar. Conclusion: This updated CUA model is similar to ICER analyses comparing onasemnogene abeparvovec with nusinersen in the symptomatic and presymptomatic SMA populations. At a list price of$2.125 M, onasemnogene abeparvovec is cost-effective compared to nusinersen for SMA1 patients treated before age 2 years. When compared to BSC, cost per QALY of onasemnogene abeparvovec is higher than commonly used thresholds for therapies in the USA ($150,000 per QALY)