Section 5 of 6
Economic information and modeling report
21 evidence topics · 13 sources
Modeling overview
Summary
No published budget impact model, cost-effectiveness analysis, or health technology assessment of pritelivir has been identified. This leaf holds public inputs a model could draw on: Asahi Kasei and AiCuris estimates of the United States population, prescription share targets, and revenue projections; a market research assumption for the monthly wholesale acquisition cost in a 2025 AiCuris presentation; treatment duration and carton sizes from the prescribing information; foscarnet course length, adverse events, hospitalization, and kidney injury in three cohorts; treatment escalation and adverse event counts in a claims analysis funded by AiCuris; and a published cost-effectiveness model of maribavir in refractory cytomegalovirus infection after transplantation.
Company estimate of the eligible U.S. population and second-line share
Company patient funnel for the United States: investor briefing slide
| Element | Briefing material |
|---|---|
| Slide heading | “Estimated number of patients in the U.S.” |
| Patients at first-line treatment | “≈180,000” |
| Patients at second-line treatment | “≈15,000” |
| Share moving from first-line to second-line treatment | “5-20% (Depending on the underlying disease)” |
| Trigger for second-line treatment | “When symptoms fail to improve and acyclovir resistance is suspected, 2nd line treatment is initiated” |
| Basis | “Based on internal investigation” |
| Share target | “As the first oral agent in the 2nd-line treatment, targeting a 70% prescription share in the 2nd-line market” |
Company description of foscarnet administration on the same slide
Company peak revenue projections
Basis of the 70% share assumption stated by the company
Difference between the Asahi Kasei projection and the earlier AiCuris projection
Pre-approval market research price assumption and peak opportunity: AiCuris corporate presentation
| Element | Corporate presentation |
|---|---|
| Slide title | “Market research suggests up to 2bn annual peak sales for acute therapy with Pritelivir” |
| Research base | “Large Scale Market Research with ~800 Health Care Professionals (HCP) was conducted in 3 waves” |
| Price assumption | “Monthly per-patient WAC in US~$30K” |
| Treatment course assumed | “(assumes 28-day treatment course)” |
| Base case | “WW Peak Opportunity ~$1.4B” |
| Base case share | “55% peak share” |
| Upside case | “WW Peak Opportunity ~$2B” |
| Upside case share | “75% peak share” |
Earlier company patient funnel for the United States and the European Economic Area
| Funnel step | United States | European Economic Area |
|---|---|---|
| Severely immunocompromised patients | “767,800” | “733,900” |
| With HSV infections | “492,000 with HSV infections” | “476,900 with HSV infections” |
| With acyclovir resistance | “27,200 patients with ACV resistance” | “24,800 patients with ACV resistance” |
| Additional moderately immunocompromised patients with acyclovir resistance | “Additional upside: 128K ACV-R moderately immunocompromised patients” | “Additional upside: 136K ACV-R moderately immunocompromised patients” |
Health economic materials and distribution channel the developer planned for launch
Commercial coverage of target facilities stated at the acquisition
Acquisition price of the developer
Company statements on generic entry timing and markets outside the United States
Treatment duration and package sizes in the prescribing information
Comparator course length, nephrotoxicity, and second-line use in a U.S. multicenter transplant cohort
Comparator course length and adverse events in a U.S. multicenter foscarnet cohort
Hospitalization, kidney injury, and hemodialysis in a U.S. single-center transplant cohort
Treatment escalation and adverse event counts in a sponsor-funded U.S. claims analysis
Analog cost-effectiveness model in refractory cytomegalovirus infection after transplantation: structure
Analog cost-effectiveness model in refractory cytomegalovirus infection after transplantation: cost components
Budget impact model
Approach and framework
No evidence found.
Perspective and time frame
No evidence found.
Epidemiology and eligible population inputs
No evidence found.
Cost assumptions
No evidence found.
Model outcomes
No evidence found.
Results
Base case
No evidence found.
Scenario analyses
No evidence found.
Budget impact model discussion
No evidence found.