Cost-effectiveness of Enasidenib versus conventional care for older patients with IDH2-mutant refractory/relapsed AML

1Citations
Citations of this article
7Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

In the randomized phase III IDHENTIFY trial, the IDH2 inhibitor enasidenib (ENA) showed improvement in event-free but not overall survival compared with conventional care regimens (CCR) among patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R), IDH2-mutant AML. We constructed a partitioned survival model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of enasidenib for the treatment of older patients with R/R, and IDH2-mutant AML. In the base-case scenario, ENA exhibited an incremental effectiveness of 0.234quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared to CCR, and an incremental cost of $126,800, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $540,300/QALY(95% CI: $197,800–$4,777,000/QALY). In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, CCR was favored in 99.8% of simulations. The cost of ENA would need to be decreased by 72% to be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/QALY. Our findings suggest that ENA is unlikely to be a cost-effective treatment for older patients with IDH2-mutant R/R AML under current pricing.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Alhajahjeh, A., Patel, K. K., Shallis, R. M., Podoltsev, N. A., Kewan, T., Stempel, J. M., … Zeidan, A. M. (2025). Cost-effectiveness of Enasidenib versus conventional care for older patients with IDH2-mutant refractory/relapsed AML. Leukemia and Lymphoma, 66(3), 488–496. https://doi.org/10.1080/10428194.2024.2426073

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free