ArticleBlood advances2025
Cost-effectiveness of upfront vs delayed allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant for intermediate risk AML.
Article in Blood advances, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
abstractThe ETAL-1 trial demonstrated that upfront allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) improved disease-free survival, but not overall survival, when compared with consolidation chemotherapy followed by "delayed" HSCT on relapse in patients with intermediate-risk acute myeloid leukemia (AML). However, the health-economic implications of upfront HSCT compared with delayed HSCT are unknown. We developed a partitioned survival analysis model using derived survival data, probabilities of salvage treatments, utilities, and costs from the ETAL-1 trial and published literature. The primary outcome was the incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) from the perspective of the United States and United Kingdom health care systems, at all accepted willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds: $50 000 to $150 000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), and £20 000 to £30 000 per QALY, respectively. The respective INMBs favored upfront HSCT, and were $497 100 (95% confidence interval [CI], $259 800-$719 600) and £235 600 (95% CI, £166 800-£298 500) at WTP thresholds of $150 000 per QALY and £30 000 per QALY. Across deterministic sensitivity analyses, no model input changed the conclusion that upfront HSCT is the cost-effective strategy in either jurisdiction. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that upfront HSCT was cost-effective in 100% of iterations, and was less costly and more effective (ie, "dominant") in >90% of iterations in both health care systems. In conclusion, we conducted a partitioned survival analysis based on the ETAL-1 trial, and showed that proceeding to HSCT in first remission is the cost-effective strategy in the care of patients with intermediate-risk AML in both the United States and the United Kingdom, as compared with delayed HSCT.
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.