Cost-effectiveness of rapid vs in-house vs send-out ADAMTS13 testing for immune thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura

Abstract

Abstract While awaiting confirmatory results, empiric therapy for patients suspected to have immune thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (iTTP) provides benefits and also accrues risks and costs. Rapid assays for ADAMTS13 may be able to avoid the cost and risk exposure associated with empiric treatment. We conducted, to our knowledge, the first cost-effectiveness evaluation of testing strategies with rapid vs traditional ADAMTS13 assays in patients with intermediate- to high-risk PLASMIC scores, with and without caplacizumab use. We built a Markov cohort simulation with 4 clinical base-case analyses: (1) intermediate-risk PLASMIC score with caplacizumab; (2) intermediate-risk PLASMIC score without caplacizumab; (3) high-risk PLASMIC score with caplacizumab; and (4) high-risk PLASMIC score without caplacizumab. Each of these evaluated 3 testing strategies: (1) rapid assay (<1-hour turnaround); (2) in-house fluorescence resonance energy transfer (FRET)–based assay (24-hour turnaround); and (3) send-out FRET-based assay (72-hour turnaround). The primary outcome was the incremental net monetary benefit reported over a 3-day time horizon and across accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds in US dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). While accruing the same amount of QALYs, the rapid assay strategy saved up to $46 820 (95% CI, $41 961-$52 486) per patient tested. No parameter variation changed the outcome. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, the rapid assay strategy was favored in 100% (3 base cases and scenario analyses) and 99% (1 base-case and scenario analysis) across 100 000 Monte Carlo iterations within each. Rapid ADAMTS13 testing for patients with intermediate- or high-risk PLASMIC scores yields significant per patient cost savings, achieved by reducing the costs associated with unnecessary therapeutic plasma exchange and caplacizumab therapy in patients without iTTP.