# Pharmacoeconomic Profiles of Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products in Rare Diseases: A Systematic Review

## TL;DR

This paper reviews the cost-effectiveness of innovative therapies for rare diseases, finding that some are promising while others are too expensive.

## Contribution

The study systematically evaluates the economic profiles of authorized ATMPs for rare diseases in Europe.

## Key findings

- Tisagenlecleucel and axicabtagene ciloleucel showed cost-effectiveness for specific rare blood diseases.
- Onasemnogene abeparvovec for SMA had uncertain cost-effectiveness, and voretigene neparvovec was often not cost-effective.
- Cost-effectiveness varied significantly across different ATMPs and disease indications.

## Abstract

Background and aim: Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs) are innovative drugs based on genes, tissues, or cells that target rare and severe diseases. ATMPs have shown promising clinical outcomes but are associated with high costs, raising questions about cost-effectiveness. Hence, this systematic review aims to analyze the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility profiles of the European Medicines Agency-authorized ATMPs for treating rare diseases. Methods: A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Studies were identified by searching PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and ProQuest scientific databases. Economic evaluations reporting incremental cost-effectiveness/utility ratios (ICERs/ICURs) for ATMPs were included. Costs were standardized to 2023 Euros, and a cost-effectiveness plane was constructed to evaluate the results against willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of EUR 50,000, EUR 100,000, and EUR 150,000 per QALY, as part of a sensitivity analysis. Results: A total of 61 studies met the inclusion criteria. ATMPs for rare blood diseases, such as tisagenlecleucel and axicabtagene ciloleucel, were found to be cost-effective in a majority of studies, with incremental QALYs ranging from 1.5 to 10 per patient over lifetime horizon. Tisagenlecleucel demonstrated a positive cost-effectiveness profile in the treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (58%), while axicabtagene ciloleucel showed a positive profile in the treatment of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (85%). Onasemnogene abeparvovec for spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) showed uncertain cost-effectiveness results, and voretigene neparvovec for retinal diseases was not cost-effective in 40% of studies, with incremental QALYs around 1.3 and high costs exceeding the WTP threshold set. Conclusions: ATMPs in treating rare diseases show promising economic potential, but cost-effectiveness varies across indications. Policymakers must balance innovation with system sustainability, using refined models and the long-term impact on patient outcomes.