ArticlePharmacoEconomics - open2022
Economic Model to Evaluate the Cost-Effectiveness of Second-Line Nilotinib Versus Dasatinib for the Treatment of Philadelphia Chromosome-Positive Chronic Myeloid Leukemia (CML-CP) in Italy.
Article in PharmacoEconomics - open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Systematic Literature Review of the Economic Evaluations of Treatments for Patients with Chronic Myeloid Leukemia.PharmacoEconomics · 2022Pooled it
- Artificial Intelligence Assisted Pharmacophore Design for Philadelphia Chromosome-Positive Leukemia with Gamma-Tocotrienol: A Toxicity Comparison Approach with Asciminib.Biomedicines · 2023Article
- The Economic Burden of Chronic Myeloid Leukemia in Patients with Later Lines: Findings from a Real-World Analysis in Italy.Advances in therapy · 2023Article
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 5 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of second-line nilotinib versus dasatinib for the treatment of Philadelphia chromosome-positive chronic myeloid leukemia (CML-CP) patients who are intolerant or resistant to imatinib and can transition to treatment-free remission (TFR).
methodsA partitioned survival model was developed to compare the cost effectiveness of nilotinib versus dasatinib. The model was developed from the Italian healthcare payer perspective and included the following health states: on second-line tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), off second-line TKI, accelerated phase/blastic crisis, TFR, and death. Progression-free and overall survival curves were derived from patient-level data that compared nilotinib and dasatinib as second-line therapy in CML-CP patients who were resistant or intolerant to imatinib. Drug costs, healthcare costs, and adverse event costs were based on real-world evidence and publicly available databases. Cost effectiveness was estimated over a 40-year time horizon. Scenario analyses were performed by adjusting time horizon, TFR parameters, costs, and utilities.
resultsSecond-line nilotinib resulted in greater time spent in TFR (0.91 life-years), increased quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (1.89), increased life-years (2.16), and decreased per-patient costs (- 38,760 €). Therefore, nilotinib was strongly dominant compared with dasatinib in the base-case analysis. Nilotinib remained strongly dominant in most scenario analyses including shorter time horizon, exclusion of TFR, and varying TKI drug costs.
conclusionsWhile the model showed that nilotinib treatment of imatinib-intolerant or resistant CML-CP patients was more effective and less costly than dasatinib treatment, there is considerable uncertainty in the findings.
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.