Cost per Response of Acthar® Gel vs Standard of Care for the Treatment of Proteinuria in Nephrotic Syndrome Due to Idiopathic Membranous Nephropathy Among Adults from the US Healthcare Perspective

Background: Proteinuria, a critical marker of glomerulosclerosis, poses a challenge in idiopathic membranous nephropathy (iMN), particularly when standard treatments fail. Acthar® Gel, a US Food and Drug Administration–approved treatment option, may offer an alternative for managing refractory proteinuria in nephrotic syndrome (NS) due to iMN where multiple treatments have failed. Objective: The cost per response of Acthar® Gel vs standard of care (SoC; cyclophosphamide or rituximab) for treatment of proteinuria in NS due to iMN was evaluated among adults who had failed multiple treatments from a US payer perspective over a 1- to 3-year horizon. Methods: A probabilistic, cohort-level state-transition model simulated patient progression through various health states using 6-month cycles. Patients began in a relapse phase and received either Acthar® Gel or SoC. Transition probabilities determined whether patients achieved a response, experienced no response, progressed to renal failure, or remained in relapse. Responders could potentially maintain their response or relapse, while nonresponders risked renal failure, with potential mortality from any state. Clinical, healthcare resource utilization, and cost data were derived from published literature. Drug prices were based on wholesale acquisition costs. Results: Over 1 year, Acthar® Gel showed a lower cost per response ($377 185) than cyclophosphamide ($551 687) and rituximab ($741 373). This cost advantage of Acthar® Gel was maintained over 2 and 3 years. Acthar® Gel had higher drug acquisition costs than cyclophosphamide and rituximab but resulted in lower overall medical costs and higher response rates within 1 year, without additional treatment-related costs. Over 2 and 3 years, Acthar® Gel had a lower overall cost of care and higher response rates than SoC, establishing it as a dominant treatment option. Conclusions: Based on current model assumptions and clinical inputs, Acthar® Gel may potentially be a cost-effective and value-based treatment strategy vs unapproved SoCs for adults with refractory proteinuria in NS due to iMN, particularly for those who have not responded to conventional therapies over a 1- to 3-year period within a US payer context. These results may inform clinical and payer decision-making in cases when other standard therapies fail to achieve desired outcomes for a specific population.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of health economics and outcomes research
Published
2025-01-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.36469/jheor.2025.142078
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Renal Diseases and Glomerulopathies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.86
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Cost per Response of Acthar® Gel vs Standard of Care for the Treatment of Proteinuria in Nephrotic Syndrome Due to Idiopathic Membranous Nephropathy Among Adults from the US Healthcare Perspective

George J. Wan, Jas Bindra, John Niewoehner, Mary Panaccio et al.
2 citations
Journal of health economics and outcomes research
Renal Diseases and Glomerulopathies
2.86
article

Cost per Response of Acthar® Gel vs Standard of Care for the Treatment of Proteinuria in Nephrotic Syndrome Due to Idiopathic Membranous Nephropathy Among Adults from the US Healthcare Perspective

George J. Wan, Jas Bindra, John Niewoehner, Mary Panaccio, Kyle Hayes, Ishveen Chopra
article en
2 citations

Abstract

Background: Proteinuria, a critical marker of glomerulosclerosis, poses a challenge in idiopathic membranous nephropathy (iMN), particularly when standard treatments fail. Acthar® Gel, a US Food and Drug Administration–approved treatment option, may offer an alternative for managing refractory proteinuria in nephrotic syndrome (NS) due to iMN where multiple treatments have failed. Objective: The cost per response of Acthar® Gel vs standard of care (SoC; cyclophosphamide or rituximab) for treatment of proteinuria in NS due to iMN was evaluated among adults who had failed multiple treatments from a US payer perspective over a 1- to 3-year horizon. Methods: A probabilistic, cohort-level state-transition model simulated patient progression through various health states using 6-month cycles. Patients began in a relapse phase and received either Acthar® Gel or SoC. Transition probabilities determined whether patients achieved a response, experienced no response, progressed to renal failure, or remained in relapse. Responders could potentially maintain their response or relapse, while nonresponders risked renal failure, with potential mortality from any state. Clinical, healthcare resource utilization, and cost data were derived from published literature. Drug prices were based on wholesale acquisition costs. Results: Over 1 year, Acthar® Gel showed a lower cost per response ($377 185) than cyclophosphamide ($551 687) and rituximab ($741 373). This cost advantage of Acthar® Gel was maintained over 2 and 3 years. Acthar® Gel had higher drug acquisition costs than cyclophosphamide and rituximab but resulted in lower overall medical costs and higher response rates within 1 year, without additional treatment-related costs. Over 2 and 3 years, Acthar® Gel had a lower overall cost of care and higher response rates than SoC, establishing it as a dominant treatment option. Conclusions: Based on current model assumptions and clinical inputs, Acthar® Gel may potentially be a cost-effective and value-based treatment strategy vs unapproved SoCs for adults with refractory proteinuria in NS due to iMN, particularly for those who have not responded to conventional therapies over a 1- to 3-year period within a US payer context. These results may inform clinical and payer decision-making in cases when other standard therapies fail to achieve desired outcomes for a specific population.

Journal of health economics and outcomes research
Openalex Percentile: Top 9%
Renal Diseases and Glomerulopathies
2.86
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.