ArticleAnnals of hematology2025
Cost-utility analysis of ropeginterferon alfa-2b to manage low-risk patients with polycythemia vera as compared to phlebotomy only in the Austrian healthcare system.
Article in Annals of hematology, 2025. 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.
- Preserving thrombosis and life years in polycythemia vera: start by reading the biology of the disease.Haematologica · 2026Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of ropeginterferon alfa-2b for the management of patients with polycythemia vera in Japan.International journal of hematology · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Treatment of polycythemia vera (PV) aims to maintain hematocrit on target to reduce risk of thrombotic complications, while preventing disease progression to myelofibrosis (MF) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML). This analysis evaluated cost-effectiveness of adding ropeginterferon alfa-2b (ropegIFNα) to phlebotomy in patients with low-risk PV (those younger than 60 years without prior thrombosis), compared to phlebotomy alone. We combined a 12-month decision tree with a semi-Markov cohort model comparing ropegIFNα to the standard treatment from the Austrian healthcare system perspective over 30 years. Outcomes were quality adjusted life years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR). Model inputs were obtained from the phase 2 Low-PV study, additional published literature and from Austrian-specific cost databases. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (SA) assessed the robustness of findings. RopegIFNα led to 1,43 higher QALYs and 50.960 EUR overall higher costs compared to phlebotomy alone, with an ICUR of 35.525 EUR/QALY. Thrombosis, MF, and AML costs decreased for the ropegIFNα group by 12%, 30% and 16% respectively, due to the delayed complications onset and disease progression. In the one-way SA, ropegIFNα costs and discount rates had the greatest impact on results. The probabilistic SA showed a 100% probability of cost-effectiveness at willingness-to-pay threshold aligned to the Austrian GDP per capita. RopegIFNα is a cost-effective treatment option for patients with low-risk PV. These findings suggest that early treatment with ropegIFNα could ensure optimal resource allocation by preventing costly thrombotic events and progression to MF whilst increasing patient quality of life.
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.