TY - JOUR
T1 - Cost-utility analysis of inotuzumab ozogamicin for relapsed or refractory B cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia from the perspective of Taiwan’s health care system
AU - Lee, Tsung Ying
AU - Chen, Hsuan Ying
AU - Chen, Tsai Yun
AU - Li, Sin Syue
AU - Fang, Wei Tse
AU - Wen, Yao Chun
AU - Lo, Yu Wen
AU - Ou, Huang Tz
N1 - Funding Information:
This project was supported by grants from the Ministry of Science and Technology in Taiwan (Grant MOST 107-2320-B-006-034) and Pfizer, Inc. (recipient: Huang-Tz Ou). The publication of study results was not contingent on the sponsors’ approval or censorship of the manuscript. Acknowledgements
Funding Information:
We gratefully thank National Cheng Kung University and its affiliated hospital for all support. The Excel model was originally developed by Ingress Health.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020, Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
PY - 2020/9/1
Y1 - 2020/9/1
N2 - Objectives: We conduct a cost-utility analysis of inotuzumab ozogamicin (INO) versus chemotherapy as the standard of care (SOC) for adults with relapsed or refractory B cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Methods: A Markov model incorporating transition probabilities between health states was applied to simulate disease progression. The model inputs, including overall survival, progression-free survival, and utility parameters, were obtained from the INO-VATE ALL trial and literatures. The Taiwan Cancer Registry Database and the Health and Welfare Database were utilized to identify the patient cohort and medical costs from the perspective of National Health Insurance Administration. The lifetime medical costs (in 2017 US dollars), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, and associated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were the main study outcomes. Results: The lifetime medical costs for INO and SOC were $176,795 and $69,496, and the QALYs gained were 2.25 and 0.84, respectively. The ICER for INO versus SOC was $76,044 per QALY gained, which is slightly more than three times Taiwan’s gross domestic product per capita (i.e., $73,224). Favorable economic results for INO versus SOC were found with an increased time horizon for model simulation, less discounting for the future benefit, and higher stem cell transplantation (SCT) rate after INO treatment; and among patients aged less than 55 years, with no SCT history, or in the first salvage treatment. Conclusions: INO versus SOC has higher costs but is more effective. The use of INO is favorable for patients in the early treatment course and when more future benefit associated with INO is considered.
AB - Objectives: We conduct a cost-utility analysis of inotuzumab ozogamicin (INO) versus chemotherapy as the standard of care (SOC) for adults with relapsed or refractory B cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Methods: A Markov model incorporating transition probabilities between health states was applied to simulate disease progression. The model inputs, including overall survival, progression-free survival, and utility parameters, were obtained from the INO-VATE ALL trial and literatures. The Taiwan Cancer Registry Database and the Health and Welfare Database were utilized to identify the patient cohort and medical costs from the perspective of National Health Insurance Administration. The lifetime medical costs (in 2017 US dollars), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, and associated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were the main study outcomes. Results: The lifetime medical costs for INO and SOC were $176,795 and $69,496, and the QALYs gained were 2.25 and 0.84, respectively. The ICER for INO versus SOC was $76,044 per QALY gained, which is slightly more than three times Taiwan’s gross domestic product per capita (i.e., $73,224). Favorable economic results for INO versus SOC were found with an increased time horizon for model simulation, less discounting for the future benefit, and higher stem cell transplantation (SCT) rate after INO treatment; and among patients aged less than 55 years, with no SCT history, or in the first salvage treatment. Conclusions: INO versus SOC has higher costs but is more effective. The use of INO is favorable for patients in the early treatment course and when more future benefit associated with INO is considered.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85086100094&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85086100094&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s10198-020-01207-7
DO - 10.1007/s10198-020-01207-7
M3 - Article
C2 - 32506280
AN - SCOPUS:85086100094
SN - 1618-7598
VL - 21
SP - 1105
EP - 1116
JO - European Journal of Health Economics
JF - European Journal of Health Economics
IS - 7
ER -