Cost-utility analysis of inotuzumab ozogamicin for relapsed or refractory B cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia from the perspective of Taiwan's health care system.

OBJECTIVES: We conduct a cost-utility analysis of inotuzumab ozogamicin (INO) versus chemotherapy as the standard of care (SOC) for adults with relapsed or refractory B cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia. METHODS: A Markov model incorporating transition probabilities between health states was applied to simulate disease progression. The model inputs, including overall survival, progression-free survival, and utility parameters, were obtained from the INO-VATE ALL trial and literatures. The Taiwan Cancer Registry Database and the Health and Welfare Database were utilized to identify the patient cohort and medical costs from the perspective of National Health Insurance Administration. The lifetime medical costs (in 2017 US dollars), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, and associated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were the main study outcomes. RESULTS: The lifetime medical costs for INO and SOC were $176,795 and $69,496, and the QALYs gained were 2.25 and 0.84, respectively. The ICER for INO versus SOC was $76,044 per QALY gained, which is slightly more than three times Taiwan's gross domestic product per capita (i.e., $73,224). Favorable economic results for INO versus SOC were found with an increased time horizon for model simulation, less discounting for the future benefit, and higher stem cell transplantation (SCT) rate after INO treatment; and among patients aged less than 55 years, with no SCT history, or in the first salvage treatment. CONCLUSIONS: INO versus SOC has higher costs but is more effective. The use of INO is favorable for patients in the early treatment course and when more future benefit associated with INO is considered.

Cost Effectiveness of Blinatumomab Versus Inotuzumab Ozogamicin in Adult Patients with Relapsed or Refractory B-Cell Precursor Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia in the United States.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The TOWER and INO-VATE-ALL trials demonstrated the efficacy and safety of blinatumomab and inotuzumab ozogamicin (inotuzumab), respectively, versus standard-of-care (SOC) chemotherapy in adults with relapsed or refractory (R/R) B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). The cost effectiveness of blinatumomab versus inotuzumab has not previously been examined. METHODS: Cost effectiveness of blinatumomab versus inotuzumab in R/R B-cell precursor ALL patients with one or no prior salvage therapy from a United States (US) payer perspective was estimated using a partitioned survival model. Health outcomes were estimated based on published aggregate data from INO-VATE-ALL and individual patient data from TOWER weighted to match patients in INO-VATE-ALL using matching adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC). Analyses were conducted using five approaches relating to use of anchored versus unanchored comparisons of health outcomes and, for the anchored comparisons, the reference treatment to which treatment effects on health outcomes were applied. Estimates from TOWER including the probabilities of complete remission and allogeneic stem-cell transplant (allo-SCT), overall and event-free survival, utilities, duration of therapy, and use of subsequent therapies were MAIC adjusted to match INO-VATE-ALL. Costs of treatment, adverse events, allo-SCT, subsequent therapies, and terminal care were from published sources. A 50-year time horizon and 3% annual discount rate were used. RESULTS: Incremental costs for blinatumomab versus inotuzumab ranged from US$7023 to US$36,244, depending on the approach used for estimating relative effectiveness. Incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) ranged from 0.54 to 1.78. Cost effectiveness for blinatumomab versus inotuzumab ranged from US$4006 to US$20,737 per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Blinatumomab is estimated to be cost effective versus inotuzumab in R/R B-cell precursor ALL adults who have received one or no prior salvage therapy from a US payer perspective.

The Clinical and Cost Effectiveness of Inotuzumab Ozogamicin for the Treatment of Adult Relapsed or Refractory B-Cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukaemia: An Evidence Review Group Evaluation of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited Pfizer, the manufacturer of inotuzumab ozogamicin (henceforth inotuzumab), to submit clinical- and cost-effectiveness evidence for inotuzumab as part of NICE's single technology appraisal process. The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and the Centre for Health Economics, both at the University of York, were commissioned as the independent evidence review group (ERG). The clinical-effectiveness data were from a multicentre randomised controlled trial that compared inotuzumab with standard of care (SoC), where SoC was the investigator's choice of chemotherapy. Inotuzumab demonstrated statistically significant improvements in response rates or in the proportion of patients progressing to haematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) but failed to meet the second primary objective of longer overall survival. Treatment-emergent adverse events were more frequent in the SoC arm, except veno-occlusive disease, which was more frequent in the inotuzumab arm. The company's economic model split patients into three post-hoc subgroups and used a partitioned survival approach within each group, with a cure assumption 3 years after receiving HSCT. In contrast with the trial results, the economic model estimated substantial improvement in survival with inotuzumab compared with SoC, providing an additional 5.2 life-years and 2.2 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) using a discount rate of 1.5% per annum. The ERG's critique highlighted a number of concerns, including the use of a post-hoc post-randomisation patient subset for extrapolation, the choice of a 1.5% discount rate, the complexity of the parametric modelling, the assumption of further treatment benefit post-HSCT, the nature of the cure assumption, and the length of inpatient stay while receiving treatment. The combination of the ERG's adjustments resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £122,174 per QALY gained using Kaplan-Meier survival estimates and £114,078 per QALY gained with parametric survival models fit to the trial data. The final determination of the appraisal followed four NICE Appraisal Committee meetings, an appeal by the company and other stakeholders, two patient access schemes, and a company response to each appraisal consultation. The final ICER post-consultation was between £33,749 and £37,497 per QALY gained compared with SoC (excluding the confidential discount for blinatumomab received as subsequent therapy). The Appraisal Committee concluded that the ICER for inotuzumab was within the range usually considered cost effective for end-of-life care and recommended inotuzumab within its licensed indication.