Cost-Effectiveness of First-Line Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Treatments When Full-Dose Fludarabine Is Unsuitable
Abstract Purpose The cost-effectiveness of first-line chronic lymphocytic leukemia treatments was assessed among patients unsuitable for full doses of fludarabine. Methods The study’s key outcome was the life-time incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) (euro/quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] ga...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Clinical therapeutics 2016-04, Vol.38 (4), p.889-904.e14 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Abstract Purpose The cost-effectiveness of first-line chronic lymphocytic leukemia treatments was assessed among patients unsuitable for full doses of fludarabine. Methods The study’s key outcome was the life-time incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) (euro/quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained) with an annual 3% discounting. A probabilistic Markov model with 3 health states (progression-free, progression, and death) was developed. Survival time was modeled based on age-matched clinical data by using appropriate survival distributions. Each health state was assigned an EuroQoL-5D-3L quality-of-life estimate and Finnish payer costs according to treatment received, and Binet stage of disease; severe adverse events and treatment inconvenience were also included. Six approaches considered the risk and value of key outcomes: cost-effectiveness efficiency frontiers; Bayesian treatment ranking (BTR) rated the lowest ICERs and best QALY gains; the cost-effectiveness acceptability frontier demonstrated optimal treatment; expected value of perfect information; and the cost–benefit assessment (CBA), a type of clinical value analysis, increased the clinical interpretation and appeal of modeled outcomes by including both relative and absolute (impact investment [benefit obtained with a fixed limited budget]) benefit assessments. Findings The ICERs compared with chlorambucil varied from €29,334 with obinutuzumab + chlorambucil to €82,159 with ofatumumab + chlorambucil. Based on the BTR of ICERs versus chlorambucil, obinutuzumab + chlorambucil was the most cost-effective with 93% probability; rituximab + chlorambucil was the second most cost-effective (73%); and rituximab + bendamustine was the third most cost-effective (65%). The ICERs of obinutuzumab + chlorambucil were €20,038, €11,556, and €15,586 compared with rituximab + chlorambucil, rituximab + bendamustine, and ofatumumab + chlorambucil. Obinutuzumab + chlorambucil was the most cost-effective treatment, with 54% and 99% probability at €30,000 and €50,000/QALY gained, respectively. The corresponding expected values of perfect information were €1438 and €44 per patient. Based on the BTR of QALYs gained, obinutuzumab + chlorambucil was the most effective, with 100% probability; rituximab + chlorambucil was the second most effective (56%); and rituximab + bendamustine was the third most effective treatment (81%). Results were robust in sensitivity analyses. For obinutuzumab + chlorambucil, the CBA demonstra |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0149-2918 1879-114X |
DOI: | 10.1016/j.clinthera.2016.02.005 |