ArticleHematology, transfusion and cell therapy
Cost-effectiveness of the regimen proposed by the International Consortium on Acute Promyelocytic Leukemia for the treatment of newly diagnosed patients with Acute Promyelocytic Leukemia.
Article in Hematology, transfusion and cell therapy. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWe performed cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses of the modified International Consortium on Acute Promyelocytic Leukemia protocol in Mexico for the treatment of acute promyelocytic leukemia Acute Promyelocytic Leukemia.
methodsWe performed a three-state Markov analysis: stable disease (first line complete response [CR]), disease event (relapse, second line response and CR) and death. The modified IC-APL protocol is composed of three phases: induction, consolidation and maintenance. Cost and outcomes were used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs); quality-adjusted life-years were used to calculate incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs).
resultsThe CR was achieved in 18 patients (90%), treated with the IC-APL protocol as the first-line option; one patient (5%) died in induction, another one never achieved CR (5%); of the 18 patients that achieved CR, 1 relapsed (5.5%). The median treatment cost of the IC-APL protocol was $21,523 USD. The average life-year in our study was 7.8 years, while the average quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) was 6.1 years. When comparing the ICER between the IC-APL and the all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) plus arsenic trioxide (ATO) protocols, we found the different costs of $6497, $19,133 and $17,123 USD in Italy, the USA and Canada, respectively. In relation to the ICUR, we found the different costs to be $13,955 and $11,979 USD in the USA and Canada, respectively.
conclusionTaking into account the similar response rates, lower cost and easy access to the modified IC-APL regimen, we consider it a cost-effective and cost-utility protocol, deeming it the treatment of choice for our population.
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.