ArticleCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2018
Cost-effectiveness analysis for midostaurin versus standard of care in acute myeloid leukemia in the United Kingdom.
Article in Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Markov analysis of azacitidine and venetoclax vs induction chemotherapy for medically fit patients with AML.Blood advances · 2024Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness of upfront vs delayed allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant for intermediate risk AML.Blood advances · 2025Article
- An Update on Protein Kinases as Therapeutic Targets-Part I: Protein Kinase C Activation and Its Role in Cancer and Cardiovascular Diseases.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Oral Azacitidine for Maintenance Treatment of Acute Myeloid Leukaemia After Induction Therapy: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.PharmacoEconomics · 2023Review
- Activity of ex vivo graft and DLI Engineering within the last decade increases, a survey from the EBMT Cellular Therapy & Immunobiology Working Party.Bone marrow transplantation · 2023Article
- Venetoclax in Combination with Azacitidine for the Treatment of Newly Diagnosed Acute Myeloid Leukemia: A Canadian Cost-Utility Analysis.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2022Article
- Activators and Inhibitors of Protein Kinase C (PKC): Their Applications in Clinical Trials.Pharmaceutics · 2021Review
- Cost-effectiveness of gilteritinib for relapsed/refractoryJournal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2021Article
- Trends in Clinical Benefits and Costs of Novel Therapeutics in AML: at What Price Does Progress Come?Current hematologic malignancy reports · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsMidostaurin (MIDO) has been proposed for the treatment of newly-diagnosed adult patients with FMS-like tyrosine kinase 3 mutation-positive (FLT3+) acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in combination with standard chemotherapy. The cost-effectiveness of MIDO and standard of care (SOC) followed by MIDO monotherapy was compared to SOC alone for newly-diagnosed FLT3+ AML in the UK.
methodsA partitioned survival model was developed from a UK public healthcare system perspective to compare the cost-effectiveness of MIDO plus SOC and SOC over a lifetime horizon. The model included the following health states/partitions: induction, consolidation, monotherapy, complete remission (CR), relapse, stem cell transplantation (SCT), SCT recovery, and post-SCT recovery. Data on CR, overall survival, and adverse events were obtained from a Phase III clinical trial. Overall survival was extrapolated beyond the trial horizon using a 'cure model' approach and data from the Office for National Statistics. Utilities were identified via a systematic review. Routine care utilization was obtained from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence single technology appraisal for azacitidine in AML (TA399). The costs of drugs and administration, adverse events, hospitalizations, physician visits, and end-of-life care were incorporated.
resultsIncremental life years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained by patients on MIDO and SOC versus SOC were 1.67 and 1.47, respectively. At an incremental cost of £54,072 over a lifetime horizon, the ICER was £32,465 per LY and £36,826 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses were generally consistent with the base case findings.
conclusionsWith limited treatments in FLT3+ AML, MIDO represents a clinically significant advance in the management of newly-diagnosed AML. Using a threshold of £50,000 per QALY for end-of-life treatment, MIDO was shown to be a cost-effective option for newly-diagnosed FLT3+ AML.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.