ArticleJournal of managed care & specialty pharmacy2025
Number needed to treat and associated cost analysis of zanubrutinib vs ibrutinib in chronic lymphocytic leukemia.
Article in Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy, 2025. 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.
- Strengths and pitfalls of NNT and NNH in early breast cancer escalation trials.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2026Article
- Estimated cardiac deaths associated with treating chronic lymphocytic leukemia with ibrutinib versus zanubrutinib in the United States.Future oncology (London, England) · 2026Article
- Number needed to treat to avoid progression and death and cost analysis: zanubrutinib versus acalabrutinib in relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia.Future oncology (London, England) · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundZanubrutinib, a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor, is an approved treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).
objectiveTo compare zanubrutinib vs ibrutinib for relapsed refractory (R/R) CLL by calculating the number needed to treat (NNT) to avoid 1 progression or death and the associated cost impact.
methodsAn NNT analysis was conducted to estimate the number of patients with R/R CLL that need to be treated to prevent 1 progression or death. Clinical efficacy data were derived from the ALPINE trial, with 24-month progression-free survival (PFS) data from the final analysis of the ALPINE trials used for the base-case analysis. An economic analysis was conducted from a US payer perspective to assess the cost impact associated with NNT, incorporating costs of direct treatment, adverse event management, medical resources utilization, and subsequent treatment. It quantified the PFS-based NNT, the incremental cost per treated patient, and incremental cost per additional patient experiencing progression or death. Deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate parameter uncertainties and identify key drivers. Scenario analyses explored different PFS estimates.
resultsIn the base-case analysis, treating 8 patients with zanubrutinib instead of ibrutinib prevented 1 progression or death. The total costs per patient treated with zanubrutinib and ibrutinib were $399,928 and $447,059, respectively, with cost savings of $47,132 per zanubrutinib-treated patient. Drug costs and PFS are the major impact factors on the incremental cost per patient. In the scenario analyses, the NNT ranged from 8 to 12, with cost savings of $46,105-$52,860 per zanubrutinib-treated patient. In a hypothetical 100-patient clinical practice, zanubrutinib could prevent approximately 13 progression or death events.
conclusionsZanubrutinib may offer more favorable clinical outcomes with cost savings compared with ibrutinib for R/R CLL treatment from a US payer perspective. Additionally, cost savings could be realized from the Enhancing Oncology Care model, a value-based payment structure that incentivizes providers to deliver high-quality care while reducing overall health care spending.
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.