ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Cost-effectiveness analysis of eltrombopag, hetrombopag and romiplostim for second-line treatment of primary immune thrombocytopenia in China.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Primary immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) is a chronic autoimmune bleeding disorder requiring long-term second-line treatment in patients refractory to corticosteroids and immunoglobulins. In China, eltrombopag, hetrombopag, and romiplostim are all available after national reimbursement negotiations, but comparative economic evidence to inform optimal therapeutic selection remains limited. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of eltrombopag, hetrombopag, and romiplostim as second-line treatments for primary ITP in China from the healthcare system perspective. Methods: A lifetime Markov model was developed to estimate costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with each treatment strategy. Clinical inputs were derived from phase III randomized controlled trials in Chinese populations and supplemented with indirect treatment comparisons where head-to-head evidence was unavailable. Long-term disease progression and relapse were extrapolated using published literature and clinical assumptions consistent with ITP disease course. Costs were obtained from domestic medical databases, and utility values were sourced from published studies. Both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess parameter uncertainty. Scenario analyses were performed to explore the impact of different time horizons on model outcomes. Results: Compared with eltrombopag, hetrombopag and romiplostim yielded incremental health gains of 0.02 QALYs and 0.05 QALYs with incremental costs of 41,329.52 CNY and 99,009.66 CNY, generating ICERs of 2,484,284.17 CNY/QALY and 2,077,773.05 CNY/QALY, respectively. When compared with hetrombopag, romiplostim was associated with an ICER of 1,859,724.27 CNY/QALY. Deterministic sensitivity analysis identified treatment response rates, drug acquisition costs and discount rate as key drivers of model outcomes. Probability sensitivity analysis revealed that at a willingness-to-pay threshold of 2 times GDP per capita, eltrombopag regimen demonstrated the highest probability of being cost-effective among the three strategies. Results of scenario analyses verified the robustness of base-case results. Conclusion: Eltrombopag was likely to be the most cost-effective second-line treatment option for ITP compared with hetrombopag and romiplostim. Our findings provide economic evidence to support decision-making regarding the use of TPO-RAs in China.
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.