ArticlePharmacoEconomics - open2022
Cost-Effectiveness of Inotuzumab Ozogamicin Compared to Standard of Care Chemotherapy for Treating Relapsed or Refractory Acute Lymphoblastic Leukaemia Patients in Norway and Sweden.
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 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Monoclonal Antibodies as a Breakthrough in Personalised Leukaemia Therapy: What Pharmacists and Doctors Should Know.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of inotuzumab ozogamicin (InO) versus standard of care chemotherapy (SoC) for adults with relapsed or refractory B cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (R/R ALL) in Sweden and Norway, and compare this to evaluations made by the health technology assessment (HTA) authorities Tandvårds- och läkemedelsförmånsverket (TLV) and the Norwegian Medicines Agency (NoMA). MATERIALS AND
methodsA partitioned survival model was developed to determine incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for InO versus SoC. Parametric survival models were fit to overall survival and progression-free survival Kaplan-Meier data from the INO-VATE ALL phase III trial. Two base cases were run using (1) Swedish and (2) Norwegian inputs (costs and discount rates). Core clinical inputs and utilities did not differ between countries. Analyses were then conducted to reflect the preferred assumptions of TLV and NoMA. Univariate and multivariate sensitivity analyses were performed.
resultsThe base case deterministic ICERs for InO versus SoC were €16,219/quality-adjusted life years (QALY) in Sweden (probabilistic €19,415) and €44,405/QALY in Norway (probabilistic €47,305). The ICERs using our model but applying the preferred assumptions of TLV or NoMA were €74,061/QALY (probabilistic €77,484) and €59,391/QALY (probabilistic €63,632), respectively. Differences between our base cases and the ICERs with TLV and NoMA settings were mainly explained by the exclusion of productivity costs and use of pooled post-haematopoietic stem-cell transplant (post-HSCT) survival in Sweden and use of higher HSCT costs in Norway. All ICERs remained below the approximated willingness-to-pay thresholds. The probability of InO being cost-effective ranged from 77 to 99% versus SoC.
conclusionsInO can likely be considered cost-effective versus SoC under our and the HTA-preferred settings.
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.