ArticleBritish journal of haematology2026
Blinatumomab for treatment of children with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia in Hong Kong: A cost-effectiveness analysis.
Article in British journal of haematology, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To assess the cost-effectiveness of blinatumomab plus chemotherapy for paediatric patients from Hong Kong public healthcare provider's perspective, a 10-year Markov model was designed to simulate outcomes in paediatric patients with newly diagnosed standard-risk B-cell ALL at: (1) average risk and (2) high risk of relapse. Three treatment strategies were evaluated: (1) blinatumomab plus chemotherapy as first-line therapy; (2) blinatumomab plus chemotherapy as second-line therapy for patients who failed first-line chemotherapy; (3) chemotherapy alone. Model outcomes included direct medical cost, life-year gained (LYG), quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Comparing to the next less costly strategy, the ICERs of blinatumomab second-line therapy (10 534 and 12 375 USD/QALY) and blinatumomab first-line therapy (50 312 and 54 799 USD/QALY) were below the willingness-to-pay threshold (162 721 USD/QALY) for high and average risk of relapse groups respectively. One-way sensitivity analysis found that exponential rates of survival with blinatumomab as first-line and blinatumomab drug cost were influential factors. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, blinatumomab first-line group was the preferred option in 71.4% and 90.3% of simulations in the high and average risk of relapse groups, correspondingly. In conclusion, adding blinatumomab to first-line therapy appears to be cost-effective for paediatric patients with newly diagnosed standard-risk B-cell ALL.
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.