IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eujhec/v21y2020i7d10.1007_s10198-020-01207-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-utility analysis of inotuzumab ozogamicin for relapsed or refractory B cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia from the perspective of Taiwan’s health care system

Author

Listed:
  • Tsung-Ying Lee

    (National Cheng Kung University)

  • Hsuan-Ying Chen

    (National Cheng Kung University)

  • Tsai-Yun Chen

    (National Cheng Kung University Hospital, National Cheng Kung University)

  • Sin-Syue Li

    (National Cheng Kung University Hospital, National Cheng Kung University)

  • Wei-Tse Fang

    (Pfizer Ltd)

  • Yao-Chun Wen

    (Pfizer Ltd)

  • Yu-Wen Lo

    (Pfizer Ltd)

  • Huang-Tz Ou

    (National Cheng Kung University
    National Cheng Kung University
    National Cheng Kung University Hospital)

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Tsung-Ying Lee & Hsuan-Ying Chen & Tsai-Yun Chen & Sin-Syue Li & Wei-Tse Fang & Yao-Chun Wen & Yu-Wen Lo & Huang-Tz Ou, 2020. "Cost-utility analysis of inotuzumab ozogamicin for relapsed or refractory B cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia from the perspective of Taiwan’s health care system," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(7), pages 1105-1116, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:21:y:2020:i:7:d:10.1007_s10198-020-01207-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s10198-020-01207-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10198-020-01207-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10198-020-01207-7?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Acute lymphoblastic leukemia; Inotuzumab ozogamicin; Standard of care; Cost-effectiveness analysis; Economic modeling;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D61 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Allocative Efficiency; Cost-Benefit Analysis

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:21:y:2020:i:7:d:10.1007_s10198-020-01207-7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.