Cost Effectiveness of the Third-Generation Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor (TKI) Ponatinib, vs. Second-Generation TKIs or Stem Cell Transplant, as Third-Line Treatment for Chronic-Phase Chronic Myeloid Leukemia

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Third-line treatment options for patients with chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukemia include tyrosine kinase inhibitors and allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloHSCT). The objective of this study was to develop a Markov model with a lifetime time horizon to assess the cost effectiveness of ponatinib for third-line chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukemia vs. second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors (dasatinib, nilotinib, bosutinib) or alloHSCT from the public healthcare system perspective in Germany, Sweden, and Canada. Methods: Clinical outcomes were derived from the literature, and from patient-level data (phase II PACE trial) for ponatinib. Resource use included drugs, alloHSCT, monitoring and follow-up, adverse events, and end-of-life care; costs were based on national tariffs. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated using chronic myeloid leukemia health-state utilities from an international time–trade-off study. Costs and benefits were discounted at 3% per annum for Germany and Sweden, and 5% for Canada. Results: Ponatinib yielded more discounted QALYs than any second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor/alloHSCT in all three countries, mainly owing to better response rates and longer durations of response. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for ponatinib vs. second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors were US$21,543–37,755/QALY in Germany, $24,018–38,227/QALY in Sweden, and $43,001–58,515/QALY in Canada. Ponatinib was dominant over alloHSCT in Germany, while incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for ponatinib vs. alloHSCT in Sweden and Canada were $715/QALY and $31,534/QALY, respectively. Conclusions: Ponatinib may improve outcomes (mainly because of higher response rates and longer response durations) at an acceptable cost level compared with other third-line treatment options for chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukemia in Germany, Sweden, and Canada; however, the lack of an indirect comparison is a limitation of our study.