Vertex

Gene Therapies for Sickle Cell Disease: Expensive but Worth It

Sickle cell disease affects roughly 100,000 Americans and is more common among African American and non-Hispanic Black people [1]. About 20,000 suffer from recurrent vaso-occlusive crises (VOCs), making them ideal candidates for the novel gene therapies Casgevy (exagamglogene autotemcel, Vertex) and Lyfgenia (lovotibeglogene autotemcel, bluebird bio, rebranded as Genetix Biotherapeutics) [2]. Priced at $2.2 million and $3.1 million, respectively, these drugs are highly innovative and – we conclude – worth the high price tags if payers can figure out how to foot the bill.

Approved in December 2023, Casgevy is a CRISPR/CAS9-based therapy, the first of its kind. Its administration procedure is similar to that of a stem cell transplant and it is incredibly efficacious, with 93% of patients in the clinical trial remaining VOC-free 12 months after treatment [3]. Casgevy also boasts an approval in transfusion-dependent beta-thalassemia, a rare blood disorder that affects only 1,300-1,500 people in the US [4]. Lyfgenia is similarly efficacious and works via a lentiviral vector to insert a functional copy of the beta globin gene to increase the production of normal hemoglobin.

Both therapies demonstrate high clinical innovation when compared to the standard of care, hydroxyrurea, with a direct cost amortized over three years. Amortization is based off clinical data demonstrating that patients who achieve VOC-free status over 12 months remain VOC-free for approximately 3 years [5, 6]. This assessment may change as more long-term data becomes available. With the life expectancy of sickle cell disease patients being far shorter than for those without the disease, these therapies have the potential to substantially close that gap, with a University of Washington study finding a benefit of approximately 17 years of increased life expectancy from the gene therapies [7]. Our model captures a dramatic 85% reduction in mortality to align with this. These therapies are even more impressive when considering the high unmet need of sickle cell disease, in addition to the societal and indirect cost savings they may bring.

However, the issue of paying for these high-priced therapies looms large. An analysis conducted by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) in 2023 concluded that they are cost-effective at a price range of $1.5-$2 million [8]. At $2.2 million, Casgevy is pushing that limit, and at $3.1 million, Lyfgenia is well out of the range. With these steep price tags, it will be a challenge for payers to figure out how to pay for them, especially considering that a large percentage of the patient population is underserved and on Medicaid [9]. Currently, CMS has proposed an outcomes-based pricing scheme (CGT access model) that individual states can opt into. Only patients enrolled in Medicaid could benefit from the model, which began in early 2025.

This model has the potential to reduce the cost for states to bear, as CMS is the central negotiator for all states and will be providing federal funding for the treatment. States can choose which gene therapies to cover [10]. Based on our analysis, we believe that covering Casgevy is more reasonable than Lyfgenia, but having more options could be beneficial for patients, even with Lyfgenia’s black box warning for hematologic malignancy that demands long-term monitoring indefinitely [11]. Manufacturers will be encouraged to provide rebates and reimburse accordingly in cases where clinical performance falls short. The initiative will also be collecting data over eleven years, with an outcomes-based agreement term of one to six performance years, which will provide further insight into navigating these expensive gene therapies [12]. The model does not include private insurance plans for those not enrolled in Medicaid. Patients on private insurance plans may face additional requirements for treatment, such as meeting a specific threshold of number of VOCs per year, and a baseline level of decent health.

Gene therapies have limits; they are not foolproof cures. Not all cells can uptake the edits, there may be off-target gene editing effects, they are not effective for every patient, and immune system responses may limit efficacy and compromise health [13]. The treatment journey is also time-consuming, with the Casgevy website stating that it can take up to one year [14]. Since long-term data are not currently available, we must learn as we go, but it is clear that Casgevy and Lyfgenia are an important milestone in the cell and gene therapy space.

Journavx, a vast improvement over opioids in moderate acute pain

Journavx’s clinical data in its first approved indication suggest it will be a game-changer in moderate acute pain management as it reduced medical need by more than 15% compared to hydrocodone + acetaminophen. (Figure 1) For reference, new drugs with 10%+ innovation over the standard of care generally achieve significant patient share. (Figure 2)

Figure 1: Drivers of Journavx's Clinical Innovation

Figure 2: Understanding Clinical Innovation

Journavx (suzetrigine), a sodium channel blocker from Vertex Pharmaceuticals, was approved on January 30, 2025 in moderate to severe acute pain, based on a pair of clinical trials that compared suzetrigine to a low dose opioid, 5 mg hydrocodone bitartrate in combination with 325 mg acetaminophen (HB/APAP), in patients that underwent abdominoplasty or bunionectomy. In these trials, suzetrigine offered reduced side effects while of course lacking the black box warning and schedule II drug status of hydrocodone. [1] These improvements, along with a slight boost from less frequent dosing, result in a substantial benefit in safety and convenience over HB/APAP and account for all of Journavx’s clinical innovation in Equinox Group’s analysis.

In addition to these strong advantages, suzetrigine held its own in terms of efficacy, with an improvement over placebo in the time-weighted reduction of pain intensity similar to that of HB/APAP (10% improvement vs. 11% in the HB/APAP group) in a pooled analysis of the two studies. The higher cost of suzetrigine claws back some of the benefits, but the net impact is a clinical innovation score of 15.3%, which is characteristic of a market-dominator. [2, 3]

Given the ongoing opioid epidemic in America, addiction free pain relief remains a significant unmet need. In 2024 alone, it was estimated that 4.8 million Americans had an opioid use disorder in the past year and 7.6 million had misused prescription opioids over that same period. [4]  While the current clinical importance of these medications is undeniable, it has long been agreed upon that the development of an alternative to opioids, especially for populations only experiencing moderate pain, is essential.

While Journavx proves significantly advantageous in the management of acute pain following minor surgeries, it remains to be seen how it stacks up against opioids in populations with more severe pain. In addition to exploring this further, Vertex is currently conducting a trial in diabetic peripheral neuropathy, suggesting we may see a future label expansion into the chronic pain space as well. But given these impressive initial results, Equinox Group suspects that suzetrigine will carve out a sizable share of the overall pain market.

[1] JOURNAVX Prescribing Information. FDA. Accessed July 11, 2025. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2025/219209Orig1s000lbl.pdf

[2] Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, Evaluation of Efficacy and Safety of Suzetrigine for Acute Pain After an Abdominoplasty. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05558410. Last updated: July 1, 2025. Accessed August 29, 2025. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05558410

[3] Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, Evaluation of Efficacy and Safety of VX-548 for Acute Pain After a Bunionectomy. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05553366. Last updated: December 16, 2024. Accessed July 11, 2025. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05553366

[4]  Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2025). Key substance use and mental health indicators in the United States: Results from the 2024 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (HHS Publication No. PEP25-07-007, NSDUH Series H-60). Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/reports/rpt56287/2024-nsduh-annual-national-report.pdf

Trikafta: A Major Step Forward for Cystic Fibrosis Patients

Cystic fibrosis (CF) affects more than 30,000 patients in the US. Recent treatments for CF focus on modulating the CFTR gene, with Vertex Pharmaceuticals’ Kalydeco (ivacaftor), Orkambi (lumacaftor/ivacaftor), and Symdeko (tezacaftor/ivacaftor) as the only approved therapies that provide more than symptomatic relief. Those agents, however, either are indicated for small segments of the CF population or offer modest clinical improvements as measured in Equinox Group’s model. 

Enter Vertex’s newest treatment, Trikafta (elexacaftor/tezacaftor/ivacaftor), approved in October 2019, which expands the number of CF patients who can benefit from CFTR modulators and offers significant improvement in clinical outcomes.  Trikafta has a broad label for all CF patients aged 12 years and older with at least one F508del mutation (approximately 85% of CF patients in the US carry a copy of the F508del mutation). Trikafta’s approval allows Vertex to treat both the underserved heterozygous F508del population and the homozygous F508del population, where both Orkambi and Symdeko are options.

Trikafta offers very high clinical innovation in patients with the heterozygous F508del mutation, delivering a 15% improvement over Pulmozyme (dornase alfa, Genentech) — with clear gains in efficacy, mortality, and morbidity:

Drivers.JPG

For these heterozygous patients, Equinox’s Rare Disease Normative Price Calculator finds Trikafta to be reasonably priced at annual US WAC of $311,500, given its level of clinical benefit.

RDPC Table.JPG

Equinox Group’s research and predictive model for pricing agents targeted to rare diseases has found that three factors drive pricing potential:

  • Size of the patient population

  • Level of disease seriousness (mortality and morbidity), and

  • Clinical improvement as measured in the Equinox unmet need model

Trikafta’s published data in the homozygous population is not sufficient to allow Equinox to accurately characterize the clinical benefit for those patients, so we cannot comment on the appropriateness of its price in that population. 

In Q1 of 2020, Trikafta achieved $900 million in sales.  That substantial and rapid commercial success is attributable both to a much larger target population than Vertex’s older CF treatments and to its very high clinical innovation in the heterozygous F508del group.