IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v17y2019i4d10.1007_s40258-019-00489-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost Effectiveness of the Third-Generation Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor (TKI) Ponatinib, vs. Second-Generation TKIs or Stem Cell Transplant, as Third-Line Treatment for Chronic-Phase Chronic Myeloid Leukemia

Author

Listed:
  • Carsten Hirt

    (Greifswald University Medical Center)

  • Sergio Iannazzo

    (SIHS Health Economics Consulting, SIHS SRL)

  • Silvia Chiroli

    (Incyte Biosciences International Sàrl
    Prothena Switzerland GmbH)

  • Lisa J. McGarry

    (ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Wholly Owned Subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited
    Vertex Pharmaceuticals Inc.)

  • Philipp Coutre

    (Charité, University of Medicine Berlin)

  • Leif Stenke

    (Karolinska University Hospital and Karolinska Institutet)

  • Torsten Dahlén

    (Karolinska University Hospital and Karolinska Institutet)

  • Jeffrey H. Lipton

    (Princess Margaret Cancer Centre)

Abstract

Background and Objectives Third-line treatment options for patients with chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukemia include tyrosine kinase inhibitors and allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloHSCT). The objective of this study was to develop a Markov model with a lifetime time horizon to assess the cost effectiveness of ponatinib for third-line chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukemia vs. second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors (dasatinib, nilotinib, bosutinib) or alloHSCT from the public healthcare system perspective in Germany, Sweden, and Canada. Methods Clinical outcomes were derived from the literature, and from patient-level data (phase II PACE trial) for ponatinib. Resource use included drugs, alloHSCT, monitoring and follow-up, adverse events, and end-of-life care; costs were based on national tariffs. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated using chronic myeloid leukemia health-state utilities from an international time–trade-off study. Costs and benefits were discounted at 3% per annum for Germany and Sweden, and 5% for Canada. Results Ponatinib yielded more discounted QALYs than any second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor/alloHSCT in all three countries, mainly owing to better response rates and longer durations of response. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for ponatinib vs. second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors were US$21,543–37,755/QALY in Germany, $24,018–38,227/QALY in Sweden, and $43,001–58,515/QALY in Canada. Ponatinib was dominant over alloHSCT in Germany, while incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for ponatinib vs. alloHSCT in Sweden and Canada were $715/QALY and $31,534/QALY, respectively. Conclusions Ponatinib may improve outcomes (mainly because of higher response rates and longer response durations) at an acceptable cost level compared with other third-line treatment options for chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukemia in Germany, Sweden, and Canada; however, the lack of an indirect comparison is a limitation of our study.

Suggested Citation

  • Carsten Hirt & Sergio Iannazzo & Silvia Chiroli & Lisa J. McGarry & Philipp Coutre & Leif Stenke & Torsten Dahlén & Jeffrey H. Lipton, 2019. "Cost Effectiveness of the Third-Generation Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor (TKI) Ponatinib, vs. Second-Generation TKIs or Stem Cell Transplant, as Third-Line Treatment for Chronic-Phase Chronic Myeloid Leuk," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 555-567, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:17:y:2019:i:4:d:10.1007_s40258-019-00489-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-019-00489-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-019-00489-0
    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/s40258-019-00489-0?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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul Kind & Geoffrey Hardman & Susan Macran, 1999. "UK population norms for EQ-5D," Working Papers 172chedp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bishal Mohindru & David Turner & Tracey Sach & Diana Bilton & Siobhan Carr & Olga Archangelidi & Arjun Bhadhuri & Jennifer A. Whitty, 2020. "Health State Utility Data in Cystic Fibrosis: A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 13-25, March.
    2. Dina Jankovic & Pedro Saramago Goncalves & Lina Gega & David Marshall & Kath Wright & Meena Hafidh & Rachel Churchill & Laura Bojke, 2022. "Cost Effectiveness of Digital Interventions for Generalised Anxiety Disorder: A Model-Based Analysis," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 6(3), pages 377-388, May.
    3. Billingsley Kaambwa & Julie Ratcliffe, 2018. "Predicting EuroQoL 5 Dimensions 5 Levels (EQ-5D-5L) Utilities from Older People’s Quality of Life Brief Questionnaire (OPQoL-Brief) Scores," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 11(1), pages 39-54, February.
    4. Billingsley Kaambwa & Gang Chen & Julie Ratcliffe & Angelo Iezzi & Aimee Maxwell & Jeff Richardson, 2017. "Mapping Between the Sydney Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ-S) and Five Multi-Attribute Utility Instruments (MAUIs)," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 111-124, January.
    5. Miqdad Asaria & Susan Griffin & Richard Cookson, 2016. "Distributional Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(1), pages 8-19, January.
    6. Donna Rowen & John Brazier & Clara Mukuria & Anju Keetharuth & Arne Risa Hole & Aki Tsuchiya & Sophie Whyte & Phil Shackley, 2016. "Eliciting Societal Preferences for Weighting QALYs for Burden of Illness and End of Life," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(2), pages 210-222, February.
    7. Abdullah Pandor & Matt Stevenson & John Stevens & Marrissa Martyn-St James & Jean Hamilton & Jenny Byrne & Claudius Rudin & Andrew Rawdin & Ruth Wong, 2018. "Ponatinib for Treating Chronic Myeloid Leukaemia: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(8), pages 903-915, August.
    8. Stefano Capri, 2013. "The economics of orphan drugs: the case of osteosarcoma treatment," LIUC Papers in Economics 265, Cattaneo University (LIUC).
    9. Nádia Simões & Nuno Crespo & Sandrina B. Moreira & Celeste A. Varum, 2016. "Measurement and determinants of health poverty and richness: evidence from Portugal," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 50(4), pages 1331-1358, June.
    10. Miqdad Asaria & Susan Griffin & Richard Cookson, 2013. "Distributional cost-effectiveness analysis: a tutorial," Working Papers 092cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    11. Andrea Manca & Nigel Rice & Mark J. Sculpher & Andrew H. Briggs, 2005. "Assessing generalisability by location in trial‐based cost‐effectiveness analysis: the use of multilevel models," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(5), pages 471-485, May.
    12. Laura Bojke & Andrea Manca & Miqdad Asaria & Ronan Mahon & Shijie Ren & Stephen Palmer, 2017. "How to Appropriately Extrapolate Costs and Utilities in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(8), pages 767-776, August.
    13. Amy Dymond & Will Green & Mary Edwards & Maria Angeles Lopez Pont & Girish Gupta, 2023. "Economic Evaluation of Tirbanibulin for the Treatment of Actinic Keratosis in Scotland," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 7(3), pages 443-454, May.
    14. Brouwer, Werner B.F. & van Exel, N. Job A., 2005. "Expectations regarding length and health related quality of life: Some empirical findings," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(5), pages 1083-1094, September.
    15. Jamie Elvidge & Ash Bullement & Anthony J. Hatswell, 2016. "Cost Effectiveness of Characterised Chondrocyte Implantation for Treatment of Cartilage Defects of the Knee in the UK," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(11), pages 1145-1159, November.
    16. Paul Wallace & Elizabeth Murray & Jim McCambridge & Zarnie Khadjesari & Ian R White & Simon G Thompson & Eleftheria Kalaitzaki & Christine Godfrey & Stuart Linke, 2011. "On-line Randomized Controlled Trial of an Internet Based Psychologically Enhanced Intervention for People with Hazardous Alcohol Consumption," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(3), pages 1-8, March.
    17. Merili Tamson & Rainer Reile & Diana Sokurova & Kaire Innos & Eha Nurk & Kaia Laidra & Sigrid Vorobjov, 2022. "Health-Related Quality of Life and Its Socio-Demographic and Behavioural Correlates during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Estonia," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-12, July.
    18. Mengjun Wu & John Brazier & Benjamin Kearns & Clare Relton & Christine Smith & Cindy Cooper, 2015. "Examining the impact of 11 long-standing health conditions on health-related quality of life using the EQ-5D in a general population sample," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(2), pages 141-151, March.
    19. Bromley, Hannah L. & Petrie, Dennis & Mann, G.Bruce & Nickson, Carolyn & Rea, Daniel & Roberts, Tracy E., 2019. "Valuing the health states associated with breast cancer screening programmes: A systematic review of economic measures," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 228(C), pages 142-154.
    20. Tomasz Fundament & Paul R Eldridge & Alexander L Green & Alan L Whone & Rod S Taylor & Adrian C Williams & W M Michael Schuepbach, 2016. "Deep Brain Stimulation for Parkinson’s Disease with Early Motor Complications: A UK Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(7), pages 1-18, July.

    More about this item

    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:aphecp:v:17:y:2019:i:4:d:10.1007_s40258-019-00489-0. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.