A practical model for economic evaluation of tissue‐engineered therapies

Abstract

The authors have declared no conflicts of interest for this article.

New Therapies for Corneal Endothelial Diseases: 2020 and Beyond

“…Specifically, it has been estimated that endothelial cells from a pair of donor corneas may, after 2 in vitro passages over 6 weeks, generate sufficient progeny cells to create at least 90 TE-EK constructs. 19 At present, intracameral free-cell suspension has been demonstrated, in the setting of an open-label clinical trial, to effectively treat corneal endothelial decompensation secondary to various conditions including FECD, cataract surgery, argon laser peripheral iridotomy (LPI), and pseudoexfoliation syndrome. 2 The same study, however, also found a relatively large range of CEC densities among recipients of cell injection therapy, 2 years after treatment.…”

“…Specifically, it has been estimated that endothelial cells from a pair of donor corneas may, after 2 in vitro passages over 6 weeks, generate sufficient progeny cells to create at least 90 TE-EK constructs. 19…”

The Limitations of QALY: A Literature Review

“…QALY analysis for cell-based therapies currently serves as a key stratagem in cost effectiveness evaluations, forming a basis for interventional approval, treatment discontinuation and reimbursement mechanisms [44,45]. For example, bio-engineered skin substitutes utilised by plastic and reconstructive surgeons have been shown to successfully demonstrate gains in cost per QALY [46] whereas Sipuleucel-T (Provenge), a cell based therapy used by onco-urologists, has been withdrawn from the EU following a cost-effectiveness analysis by the NICE Appraisal Committee. The calculation of between £61204 and £108585 per QALY fell well outside the usual cost-effectiveness threshold and Sipuleucel-T was consequently not recommended for adoption [44].…”