rare disease

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.

Using Equinox Drivers Charts to Understand Fabhalta's Success in PNH

Paroxysmal Nocturnal Hemoglobinuria (PNH) is rare blood disorder estimated to have a global prevalence of 12 to 13 per 1,000,000 people [1]. This condition can potentially lead to kidney disease, hemolytic anemia, and even life-threatening blood clots [2]. Until the C5-inhibitor Soliris (Alexion, eculizumab) was approved in 2007, there were no approved therapies for PNH [3].

While Soliris, along with Alexion’s other C5 inhibitor, Ultomiris (ravulizumab, which was approved for PNH in 2018 [4]), are still considered standards of care, the market has grown with the approvals of Empaveli (Apellis, pegcetacoplan), Fabhalta (Novartis, iptacopan), and PiaSky (Roche, crovalimab). Using Equinox drivers charts can help us understand how these newer entries compare to Alexion’s drugs.

Select two drugs above to see the drivers chart

Equinox characterizes a drug’s improvement relative to a previous standard of care or another drug with a Clinical Innovation (CI) score, which quantifies how much the new agent lowers unmet need in the indication. For frame of reference, products with >2% CI score are typically commercially viable, products with >5% CI score are commercially successful (top 3-4 in market), and products with >10% CI score are market dominators.

Fabhalta has a whopping CI score of 29.9% when compared to Ultomiris. Though Fabhalta being the first oral agent in this indication is an improvement on its own, its substantial efficacy benefits flow through to improve morbidity and mortality across the board. Although Fabhalta has the highest WAC ((Wholesale Acquisition Cost) among the PNH drugs in this analysis, this is offset by reductions in hospitalization and associated medical costs.

While Empaveli improves upon Ultomiris’s efficacy, it does not do so to the same extent Fabhalta does. Additionally, while Empaveli can be administered at home, the frequency of administration is increased, offsetting some of its convenience benefit. In most cases, a 10.0% CI score would be expected to be a market dominator, but because it still falls far short of Fabhalta, this would be an exception.

Finally, although Piasky is more convenient than Ultomiris, this is not enough to overcome its marginally reduced efficacy at the current WAC. We do not expect it to be competitive in this market, especially against newer drugs that reduce unmet need further, such as Fabhalta and Empaveli.

Soliris 2007 reflects Soliris WAC at launch; all costs inflated to 2025 USD.

Equinox also acknowledges the approval of Voydeya in this indication, though it was not included in this analysis due to it being approved as an add-on therapy for Soliris or Ultomiris, not a monotherapy.