Cost-effectiveness of acalabrutinib regimens in treatment-naïve chronic lymphocytic leukemia in the United States

7Citations
Citations of this article
12Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: Clinical outcomes in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) have improved with targeted therapy, including Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as acalabrutinib. Methods: A semi-Markov model with three health states (progression-free, progressed disease, and death) estimated cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for acalabrutinib ± obinutuzumab vs chlorambucil + obinutuzumab in treatment-naive CLL (based on ELEVATE-TN). The model used direct costs and resource utilization from the US Medicare perspective and utility values sourced from literature. Sensitivity analyses tested the robustness of the model. Results: Over a 30-year lifetime horizon, the model base case analysis suggested that acalabrutinib monotherapy had an incremental cost of $206,329 and 2.52 QALYs gained versus chlorambucil + obinutuzumab, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $81,960/QALY. Acalabrutinib + obinutuzumab had an incremental cost of $423,747 and 2.79 QALYs gained (ICER: $152,153/QALY). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed the probability of acalabrutinib monotherapy being cost-effective as 59% to 73% at a $100,000-to-150,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold; the probability of acalabrutinib + obinutuzumab being cost-effective ranged from 34% to 51%. Conclusions: Although the analysis is limited by uncertainty in postprogression survival outcomes, acalabrutinib monotherapy is likely cost-effective vs chlorambucil + obinutuzumab in treatment-naive CLL in the US Medicare setting.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Munir, T., Genovez, V., Genestier, V., Ryan, K., Liljas, B., & Gaitonde, P. (2023). Cost-effectiveness of acalabrutinib regimens in treatment-naïve chronic lymphocytic leukemia in the United States. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 23(5), 579–589. https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2023.2196408

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