Background: Thrombopoietin receptor agonists—romiplostim, eltrombopag and avatrombopag—are commonly used as second-line treatments for immune thrombocytopenia (ITP). Methods: A Markov model was developed to estimate the cost effectiveness of the three TPO-RAs in adults with insufficient response to previous treatment from the perspective of the UK National Health Service (NHS). The model considered the effects of bleeding events, concomitant ITP medications, rescue therapies and treatment related adverse events over a lifetime horizon. Model inputs for effectiveness were based on a network meta-analysis and other published literature on ITP management. Other model inputs included costs (e.g., drug acquisition and administration) and healthcare resource utilisation. Results: Avatrombopag was associated with higher quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (10.979) than romiplostim (10.628) and eltrombopag (10.085), producing incremental QALYs of −0.351 and −0.894, respectively. Avatrombopag was associated with lower total costs (GBP £319,334) compared with romiplostim (GBP 406,361 [cost saving of GBP 87,027]) and higher total costs compared with eltrombopag (GBP 313,987 [incremental cost of GBP 5347]). Avatrombopag therefore dominated romiplostim (more effective and less expensive) and was cost-effective versus eltrombopag (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of GBP 5982 per QALY). Conclusions: Avatrombopag is a cost-effective treatment compared with romiplostim and eltrombopag for the second-line treatment of adults with ITP from the perspective of the UK NHS.

Objective: Currently there are no disease-specific approved therapies for non-alcoholic fatty liver (NAFL) and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH); however, several treatments are under development. This study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of hypothetical innovative therapies compared with lifestyle intervention alone and combined with pioglitazone, and assess the health economic consequences of their future availability for patients. Methods: A Markov cohort model was developed, considering fourteen disease health states and one absorbing state representing death. Transition probabilities, costs, utilities, and treatment efficacy were based on published data and assumptions. Four treatment strategies were considered, including two existing therapies (lifestyle intervention, small molecule treatment) and two hypothetical interventions (biological and curative therapy). The analysis was performed from the US third-party payer perspective. Results: The curative treatment with the assumed efficacy of 70% of patients cured and assumed price of $500,000 was the only cost-effective option. Although it incurred higher costs (a difference of $188,771 vs. lifestyle intervention and $197,702 vs. small molecule), it generated more QALYs (a difference of 1.58 and 1.38 QALYs, respectively), resulting in an ICER below the willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY. The sensitivity analyses showed that the results were robust to variations in model parameters. Conclusions: This study highlighted the potential benefits of therapies aimed at curing a disease rather than stopping its progression. Nonetheless, each of the analyzed therapies could be cost-effective compared with lifestyle intervention at a relatively high price.