IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/hecrev/v9y2019i1d10.1186_s13561-019-0257-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The cost-effectiveness of pegaspargase versus native asparaginase for first-line treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukaemia: a UK-based cost-utility analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Xingdi Hu

    (GHEOR Analytics, Shire)

  • Kingsley P. Wildman

    (Medical Affairs for Oncology, UK & Ireland, Servier Laboratories Ltd)

  • Subham Basu

    (Medical Affairs Oncology, UK & Republic of Ireland, Shire Pharmaceuticals Ltd)

  • Peggy L. Lin

    (GHEOR Analytics, Shire)

  • Clare Rowntree

    (University Hospital of Wales)

  • Vaskar Saha

    (University of Manchester, The Oglesby Cancer Research Building
    Tata Medical Center)

Abstract

Background L-asparaginase is a key component of treatment for patients with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) in the UK. Commonly used forms of asparaginase are native E. coli-derived asparaginase (native asparaginase) and pegaspargase in first-line combination therapy, and native Erwinia chrysanthemi-derived asparaginase (Erwinia asparaginase) as second-line treatment. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pegaspargase versus native asparaginase in first-line combination therapy for patients with newly diagnosed ALL. A combined decision tree and health-state transition Markov cost-effectiveness model was developed to assess the relative costs and health outcomes of pegaspargase versus native asparaginase in the UK setting. Results In base case analyses, first-line pegaspargase (followed by Erwinia asparaginase in cases of hypersensitivity) dominated first-line native asparaginase followed by Erwinia asparaginase; i.e. resulted in lower costs and more quality-adjusted life year gain. The favourable hypersensitivity rates and administration profile of pegaspargase led to lifetime cost savings of £4741 versus native asparaginase. Pegaspargase remained cost-effective versus all treatment strategies in all scenario analyses, including use of the 2500 IU/m2 dose, recommended for patients ≤21 years of age. Conclusions Pegaspargase, as part of multi-drug chemotherapy, is a cost-effective option for the treatment of newly diagnosed ALL. Based on this study, The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Technology Appraisal Committee concluded that it could recommend pegaspargase as a cost-effective use of National Health Service resources in England & Wales for treating ALL in children, young people and adults with untreated, newly diagnosed disease. Trial registration UKALL 2011, EudraCT number 2010-020924-22; UKALL 2003, EudraCT number 2007-004013-34; UKALL14, EudraCT number 2009-012717-22.

Suggested Citation

  • Xingdi Hu & Kingsley P. Wildman & Subham Basu & Peggy L. Lin & Clare Rowntree & Vaskar Saha, 2019. "The cost-effectiveness of pegaspargase versus native asparaginase for first-line treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukaemia: a UK-based cost-utility analysis," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 1-13, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:hecrev:v:9:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1186_s13561-019-0257-3
    DOI: 10.1186/s13561-019-0257-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1186/s13561-019-0257-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1186/s13561-019-0257-3?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
    ---><---

    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:hecrev:v:9:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1186_s13561-019-0257-3. 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/economics/journal/13561 .

    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.