ArticleIntractable & rare diseases research2024
Cost-utility analysis of romiplostim for the treatment of chronic primary immune thrombocytopenia in China.
Article in Intractable & rare diseases research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy and Safety of rhIL-11 in the Treatment of Cancer Therapy-Induced Thrombocytopenia: A Multicenter Retrospective Study.Cancer medicine · 2026Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of eltrombopag, hetrombopag and romiplostim for second-line treatment of primary immune thrombocytopenia in China.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Cost-effectiveness of hetrombopag, eltrombopag, and avatrombopag for chronic immune thrombocytopenia in China: a cost-utility analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
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
This study aimed to assess the cost-utility of romiplostim (ROMI) compared to eltrombopag (EPAG) as a second-line treatment for chronic primary immune thrombocytopenia (cITP) in Chinese adults. A decision tree-embedded Markov model with a lifetime horizon was used to estimate the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs for ROMI versus EPAG from the perspective of the Chinese health care system. The model was driven by platelet response with a 4-week cycle. Both QALYs and costs were discounted 5% per year. Clinical data comparing ROMI and EPAG were obtained by matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC), utilizing individual patient data on ROMI and published Chinese Phase III trial data on EPAG. Costs were reported in 2022 US dollars and included drug acquisition costs, monitoring costs, bleeding-related costs, and costs associated with adverse events. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. The CEA model indicated that treatment with ROMI resulted in an average of $4,344.4 higher costs for 0.004 QALYs. One-way sensitivity analysis (OSA) indicated that the model was most sensitive to the high bleeding rate in response (Markov stage) for EPAG and ROMI. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) indicated that ROMI was likely to be cost effective in 0.16% cases at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $12039.1 (China per capita GDP in 2022) per QALY. If the price of ROMI is either lower than or equal to that of EPAG, ROMI could likely be considered cost-effective as a second-line treatment for Chinese adults with cITP.
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.