Independent Market Access and Reimbursement Risk Assessment.

Built by former payers, HTA reviewers, and Industry Experts. 

Garadacimab for preventing recurrent attacks of hereditary angioedema in people 12 years and over

As of October 2025, MARA’s assessment finds Garadacimab’s reimbursement risk concentrated in patient population and subgroups, with care pathway integration a strength; the current MARA Rating and full rationale are available in the report.

The assessment also weighs evidence quality and robustness: how solid the underlying evidence is on its own terms — trial design, size and endpoints — before any question of price is reached. The strength recorded in care pathway integration carries weight because that domain asks how the drug fits into the way care is organised today; a treatment that demands new infrastructure or displaces an established pathway faces extra scrutiny.

Immunology

This rating sits within MARA’s Immunology coverage, alongside 29 other independently assessed treatments in the same area.

What payers will ask

Is the clinical benefit the kind payers reward? — Clinical effectiveness

The clinical effectiveness of garadacimab is supported by the VANGUARD trial, a Phase 3 randomized controlled trial that demonstrated an 86.5% reduction in the mean number of hereditary angioedema attacks compared to placebo. Additionally, indirect comparisons suggest that garadacimab’s effectiveness is comparable or superior to existing treatments like berotralstat and C1-INHs. However, the lack of direct head-to-head trials introduces some uncertainty.

Does the economic case hold at the expected price? — Cost effectiveness

The cost-effectiveness estimates for garadacimab are within the range that NICE considers acceptable, particularly for patients with 2 or more attacks a month. The committee concluded that the most plausible ICER is around the middle of the range NICE considers a cost-effective use of NHS resources, although there remains some uncertainty regarding the estimates.

Is there quality-of-life evidence payers weigh? — Quality of life

The evidence indicates that garadacimab significantly improves health-related quality of life by reducing the frequency of attacks, which is associated with decreased anxiety and improved daily functioning. The committee noted that long periods of being attack-free lead to substantial improvements in quality of life, although some aspects of HRQoL related to attack severity were not fully captured.

Does the safety profile hold up for payers? — Safety and Adverse Effects

Garadacimab has a favorable safety profile, with adverse events primarily being mild to moderate. The committee noted that the treatment is generally well-tolerated, with serious adverse events being rare, which supports its use as a preventive treatment option.

Was the drug compared against what payers expect? — Comparator Selection

The comparators selected for the evaluation, including berotralstat and C1-INHs, are appropriate as they represent current standard treatments for hereditary angioedema. The committee acknowledged that while indirect comparisons were necessary, they were based on robust evidence from relevant trials.

Is the population defined the way payers need it? — Patient Population and Subgroups

The trial population in the VANGUARD study included individuals aged 12 years and older with hereditary angioedema, which aligns with the intended patient population for garadacimab. The committee noted that while the population was generally representative, there were some concerns regarding the generalizability of results to the UK population.

Does the drug fit how care is delivered and paid for? — Care Pathway Integration

Garadacimab can be integrated into existing care pathways with minimal disruption, as it is a self-administered treatment that does not require significant changes to current clinical practices. The committee noted that this ease of integration is a significant advantage for patients and healthcare providers.

Are the wider system costs understood? — Resource Use and Cost Implications

The resource implications of implementing garadacimab are manageable, with the potential for cost savings due to reduced attack frequency and associated healthcare costs. The committee recognized that while there is a notable cost, it is justified by the benefits provided.

Would the evidence survive payer scrutiny? — Evidence Quality and Robustness

The evidence base for garadacimab is supported by a Phase 3 trial and indirect comparisons, which provide a strong foundation for decision-making. However, the committee noted some limitations in the evidence, particularly regarding the lack of direct comparisons with all relevant treatments.

How exposed is the case to uncertainty? — Uncertainty, Sensitivity, and Broader Impacts

While there are uncertainties related to the cost-effectiveness estimates and the long-term effectiveness of garadacimab, the committee concluded that these uncertainties are manageable and do not preclude its recommendation. The treatment addresses a significant unmet need in the patient population.

Be alerted when this rating changes:

Sample two-page MARA Rating report for the fictional drug Samplinib: the rating with its decision record, and the ten graded payer questions with the reasoning behind each
Every MARA rating is delivered as a two-page reasoned report (sample, fictional product) — see it in full
Full Legal Disclaimer and Usage Terms

The MARA Rating® is an independent opinion of a drug’s market access pharma risk profile and is provided for informational purposes only—not as investment, medical, legal or any other type of advice. See our full disclaimer here.