Trial reportClinical drug investigation2026
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of PI3K Inhibitors for Relapsed or Refractory Follicular Lymphoma in China: A Comparison Between Linperlisib and Duvelisib.
Trial report in Clinical drug investigation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04370405 (A Phase 2, Single Arm, Open Label Clinical Study to Assess the Safety and Efficacy of YY-20394 in Subjects With Relapsed/Refractory Follicular Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma), which is not on this 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.
A Phase 2, Single Arm, Open Label Clinical Study to Assess the Safety and Efficacy of YY-20394 in Subjects With Relapsed/Refractory Follicular Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLinperlisib, a highly selective PI3K-δ inhibitor, was firstly approved in China in November 2022 for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma (r/r FL) who had received at least two prior lines of systemic therapy (3L+ FL), demonstrating compelling clinical efficacy.
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of linperlisib compared to duvelisib for patients with 3L+ FL from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system.
methodsA lifetime three-state partitioned survival model was developed to integrate comparative efficacy and direct costs. An unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) was conducted using individual data from NCT04370405 and published aggregate data from the DYNAMO trial, aiming to derive comparative efficacy data and calculate patients' life-years gained. Utility values were from GADOLIN study, as neither trial collected them. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated by multiplying life-years by utility values. Direct costs included costs of drug acquisition, adverse events, subsequent salvage therapy, health-care resource use (HCRU), and end-of-life care. A 5% annual discount rate was applied to both future QALYs and costs. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), calculated as discounted incremental costs divided by incremental QALYs. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was set at China's 2023 per capita GDP (CNY89,358/QALY), with an ICER below this threshold indicating linperlisib was more cost effective. Model robustness was verified via one-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (DSA and PSA).
resultsIn the base-case analysis, linperlisib yielded an additional 1.58 QALYs (4.13 vs 2.55) at an incremental cost of CNY108,780 (CNY292,805 vs CNY184,025) compared with duvelisib. The resulting ICER was CNY68,996 per QALY, which was below the WTP. Although drug costs were the main cost driver, improved survival reduced end-of-life care costs by CNY1,507. Deterministic sensitivity analysis identified the price of linperlisib as the top influential parameter, yet all ICERs stayed below the WTP threshold. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed a 91.2% cost-effectiveness probability at the preset WTP, confirming robust findings.
conclusionsLinperlisib is cost effective compared to duvelisib for 3L+ FL patients in China, as verified in sensitivity analyses. Further study is warranted to confirm that it meets an unmet need in China.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41806203What 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.