— After correcting an input to the cost-effectiveness model, ICER’s health-benchmark price benchmark range for nadofaragene firadenovec has been updated to $158,600-$262,000 —
BOSTON, January 15, 2021 – The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) today issued a revised Final Evidence Report that corrects a data entry error within the cost-effectiveness analysis of nadofaragene firadenovec (Adstiladrin®, FKD Therapies Oy and FerGene) for the treatment of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) that is unresponsive to Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) intravesical therapy.
ICER’s health-benefit price benchmark (HBPB) range for nadofaragene firadenovec has been revised accordingly and is now $158,600-$262,000. The original version of this report, published on December 17, 2020, inaccurately stated that this range was $121,000-$201,000.
The HBPB is a price range suggesting the highest US price a manufacturer should charge for a treatment, based on the amount of improvement in overall health patients receive from that treatment, when a higher price would cause disproportionately greater losses in health among other patients in the health system due to rising overall costs of health care and health insurance. In short, it is the top price range at which a health system can reward innovation and better health for patients without doing more harm than good.
The other data and conclusions included in our December 17 press release remain accurate, including all findings related to oportuzumab monatox (Vicineum™, Sesen Bio). We have uploaded updated versions of our Final Evidence Report and Report-at-a-Glance to our website.
The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) is an independent non-profit research institute that produces reports analyzing the evidence on the effectiveness and value of drugs and other medical services. ICER’s reports include evidence-based calculations of prices for new drugs that accurately reflect the degree of improvement expected in long-term patient outcomes, while also highlighting price levels that might contribute to unaffordable short-term cost growth for the overall health care system.
ICER’s reports incorporate extensive input from all stakeholders and are the subject of public hearings through three core programs: the California Technology Assessment Forum (CTAF), the Midwest Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council (Midwest CEPAC), and the New England Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council (New England CEPAC). These independent panels review ICER’s reports at public meetings to deliberate on the evidence and develop recommendations for how patients, clinicians, insurers, and policymakers can improve the quality and value of health care. For more information about ICER, please visit ICER’s website.