ArticleBMC health services research2023
Cost-effectiveness analysis of imatinib versus dasatinib in the treatment of pediatric Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia when combined with conventional chemotherapy in China.
Article in BMC health services research, 2023. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Economic evaluation of ponatinib vs reference and generic imatinib in front-line management of philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia: A value dilemma.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2026Article
- A di-electrophoretic simulation procedure of iron-oxide micro-particle drug attachment system for leukemia treatment using COMSOL software: a potential treatment reference for LMICs.Frontiers in medical technology · 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
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTyrosine kinase inhibitors combined with conventional chemotherapy (CC) in treating Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia (Ph-positive ALL) has achieved promising efficacy and safety outcomes. The study was conducted to compare the cost-effectiveness between imatinib (HANSOH Pharma, Jiangsu, China) and dasatinib (CHIATAI TIANQING Pharma, Jiangsu, China) in treating pediatric Ph-positive ALL when combined with CC from the perspective of the health system in China.
methodsA Markov model was established to simulate a hypothetical cohort of pediatric Ph-positive ALL patients receiving imatinib or dasatinib, combined with CC. The model was designed using a 10-year horizon, a 3- month cycle, and a 5% discount rate. Three health states were included: alive with progression-free survival, progressed disease, and death. Patient characteristics and transition probabilities were estimated based on clinical trials. Other relevant data, such as direct treatment costs and health utility data were extracted from published literature and Sichuan Province's centralized procurement and supervision platform. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to assess the robustness of the results. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) was set as three times China's GDP per capita in 2021.
resultsIn the base-case analysis, the total medical costs were $89,701 and $101,182, and the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained were 1.99 and 2.70, for imatinib and dasatinib regimens, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for dasatinib versus imatinib was $16,170/QALY. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that treatment with dasatinib combined with CC achieved a 96.4% probability of cost-effectiveness at a WTP threshold of $37,765/QALY.
conclusionsDasatinib combined with CC is likely to be a cost-effective strategy compared to imatinib combination therapy for pediatric Ph-positive ALL in China at a WTP threshold of $37,765/QALY.
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.