Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research · 2023
A Markov model-based cost-effectiveness analysis comparing zanubrutinib to ibrutinib for treating relapsed and refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Li Rongqi, Wang Chenxiang, Ye Zhongjiang, Chen Yizhang, Xu Jingyao, Chen Chuang, Yang Jianhui, Fu Jing, Zhou Tao, Zhou Ziye, Zhang Xiuhua
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This article examined the cost-effectiveness of zanubrutinib and ibrutinib for managing relapsed and refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia from the viewpoint of payers in China and the US.
METHODS: Markov models were employed to conduct comparisons. Baseline characteristics and clinical data were extracted from the ALPINE study. The cost-effectiveness outcome indicators encompassed cost, quality-adjusted life years, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.
RESULTS: The Markov model analysis revealed that the zanubrutinib group incurred an incremental cost per patient of $-24,586.53 compared to the ibrutinib group. The zanubrutinib group exhibited an incremental utility per capita of 0.28 quality-adjusted life years, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $-88,068.16 per quality-adjusted life year, which is lower than the payment threshold in China. The willingness-to-pay value in China for 2022 was three times the country's gross domestic product per capita. In the US, patients in the zanubrutinib group experienced per capita incremental costs of $-79,421.56, per capita incremental utility of 0.28 quality-adjusted life years, and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $-284,485.45 per quality-adjusted life year.
CONCLUSION: For Chinese payers, zanubrutinib exhibited superior cost-effectiveness compared to ibrutinib. Zanubrutinib proved to be a more affordable option for US payers when considering the payment threshold.
METHODS: Markov models were employed to conduct comparisons. Baseline characteristics and clinical data were extracted from the ALPINE study. The cost-effectiveness outcome indicators encompassed cost, quality-adjusted life years, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.
RESULTS: The Markov model analysis revealed that the zanubrutinib group incurred an incremental cost per patient of $-24,586.53 compared to the ibrutinib group. The zanubrutinib group exhibited an incremental utility per capita of 0.28 quality-adjusted life years, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $-88,068.16 per quality-adjusted life year, which is lower than the payment threshold in China. The willingness-to-pay value in China for 2022 was three times the country's gross domestic product per capita. In the US, patients in the zanubrutinib group experienced per capita incremental costs of $-79,421.56, per capita incremental utility of 0.28 quality-adjusted life years, and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $-284,485.45 per quality-adjusted life year.
CONCLUSION: For Chinese payers, zanubrutinib exhibited superior cost-effectiveness compared to ibrutinib. Zanubrutinib proved to be a more affordable option for US payers when considering the payment threshold.