Cost-effectiveness of kinase inhibitors for hematologic malignancies: a systematic and critical review

References

• Weingart SN, Brown E, Bach PB, et al. NCCN Task Force Report: oral chemotherapy. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2008;6(Suppl 3):S1–S14.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Shen C, Chien C-R, Geynisman DM, et al. A review of economic impact of targeted oral anticancer medications. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2014;14(1):45–49.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olchanski N, Zhong Y, Cohen JT, et al. The peculiar economics of life-extending therapies: a review of costing methods in health economic evaluations in oncology. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2015;15(6):931–940.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meropol NJ, Schrag D, Smith TJ, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology guidance statement: the cost of cancer care. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(23):3868–3874.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saret CJ, Winn AN, Shah G, et al. Value of innovation in hematologic malignancies: a systematic review of published cost-effectiveness analyses. Blood. 2015;125(12):1866–1869.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marchetti M. Value of innovation for hematologic malignancies. J Med Econ. 2016;19(5):487–489.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chhatwal J, Mathisen M, Kantarjian H. Are high drug prices for hematologic malignancies justified? -A critical analysis. Cancer. 2015;121(19):3372–3379.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cote S, Gaudig M, Nielsen SK, et al. Challenges for assessing the economic value of orphan drugs-a literature review of current and alternative approaches. Value Health. 2015;18(A681):7.
   Google Scholar
• Egger M, Smith GD, Altman DG. Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta-Analysis in Context, 2nd Edition, Egger M, George Davey-Smith G, Altman D (Eds). ISBN: 978-0-7279-1488-0506; February 2001, BMJ Books.
   Google Scholar
• Kulpeng W. Cost-utility analysis of dasatinib and nilotinib in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia refractory to first-line treatment with imatinib in Thailand. Clin Ther. 2014;36(4):534–543.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Romero M, Chávez D, de Los Ríos M, et al. Cost-effectiveness of nilotinib, dasatinib and imatinib as first-line treatment for chronic myeloid leukemia in Colombia, 2012. Biomédica. 2014;34:48–59.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whalen J. Cost-effectiveness analysis of second-line tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment for chronic myelogenous leukemia. J Med Econ. 2016;19(5):445–461.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Padula WV, Larson RA, Stacie B, et al. Cost-effectiveness of tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment strategies for chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase after generic entry of imatinib in the United States. JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst. 2016;108(7):djw003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sheng G, Chen S, Dong C, et al. Societal implications of medical insurance coverage for imatinib as first-line treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia in China: a cost-effectiveness analysis. J Med Econ. 2017;20(4):371–381.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li N, Yang X, Fan L, et al. Nilotinib versus dasatinib as second-line therapy in patients with Philadelphia chromosome-positive chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase who are resistant or intolerant to imatinib: a cost-effectiveness analysis based on real-world data. J Med Econ. 2017;20(4):328–336.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rochau U. Systematic assessment of decision-analytic models for chronic myeloid leukemia. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2014;12(2):103–115.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Aiello A, Daniel F, D’Ausilio A, et al. Cost-effectiveness of nilotinib in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia eligible to start the treatment-free remission phase in Italy. Value Health. 2015;PCN:253.
   Google Scholar
• Kulpeng W, Somipitak S, Jootar S, et al. Cost-utility analysis of dasatinib and nilotinib in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia refractory to first-line treatment with imatinib in Thailand. Clin Ther. 2014;36(4):534–543.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shin M. Cost-effectiveness of first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitors (Tkis) in newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) patients in Korea: comparison of dasatinib (100mg), nilotinib (600mg) and imatinib (400mg). Value Health. 2015 Nov;18(7):A458.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Le Coutre P, Hirt C, Iannazzo S, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of ponatinib in the treatment of CML in Germany. Oncol Res Treat. 2015;38(suppl 5):131–132.
   Google Scholar
• Lucioni C, Iannazzo S, Mazzi S, et al. Cost-effectiveness of ponatinib in chronic myeloid leukemia in Italy. Global Reg Health Technol Assess. 2015;2(1–16):1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iannazzo S, McGarry L, Chiroli S. Cost-effectiveness analysis of ponatinib in the treatment of chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukemia (CP-CML) in Sweden. Value Health. 2015;18(7):A668.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen Q, Jain N, Ayer T, et al. Economic burden of chronic lymphocytic leukemia in the era of oral targeted therapies in the United States. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(2):166–174.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Welten H, Ignacio TJ, Verheggen BG. Cost-effectiveness of ibrutinib in adult patients with relapsed chronic lymphocytic leukaemia in the Netherlands. Value Health. 2016;19(A737):7.
   Google Scholar
• Costa S, Connors JM, Cromwell I, et al. A cost-effectiveness evaluation of ibrutinib for patients with relapsed chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) in British Columbia, Canada. Med Decis Making. 2016;36(5): PS 3–3.
   Google Scholar
• Sorensen SV, Peng S, Dorman E, et al. The cost-effectiveness of ibrutinib in treatment of relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Health Econ Out Res Open Access. 2016;2(4):1–9.
   Google Scholar
• Sullivan W, Hadlow S, Perard S, et al. The cost effectiveness of idelalisib in chronic lymphocytic leukaemia in England and Wales. Br J Haematol. 2016;173(Supplement 1):92–93.
   Google Scholar
• Marchetti M, Cuneo A, Mauro FR, et al. Is idelalisib cost-effective for refractory/relapsed chronic lymphocytic leukemia? A decision analysis in the second-line setting. Blood. 2015;126(23):3305.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leleu H, Blachier M, Mealing S, et al. Cost-effectiveness of idelalisib plus rituximab in chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. Value Health. 2015;18(7):A460.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gouveia M, Silva MG, Alarcão J, et al. Cost-effectiveness of idelalisib in combination with rituximab for the treatment of relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) in Portugal. Value Health. 2015;18(7):A461–A462.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kumar G, Morton TD, Padhiar A, et al. A Scotland based cost-effectiveness analysis of idelalisib (zydelig®) in combination with rituximab for the treatment of adults with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia CLL). Value Health. 2015;18(7):A 455.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yu JS, Seal B, Carlson JJ. Idelalisib plus rituximab versus place bolus rituximab for relapsed chronic lymphocytic leukemia: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Value Health. 2015;18(3):A 203.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vanderwalle B, Anreozzi V, Almeida J, et al. Pharmacoeconomics of ruxolitinib therapy in patients with myelofibrosis. J Med Econ. 2016;19(4):424–431.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wade R, Hodgson R, Biswas M, et al. A review of ruxolitinib for the treatment of myelofibrosis: a critique of the evidence. PharmacoEconomics. 2017;35:203–213.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rojas R, Balmaceda C, Vargas C, et al. Cost effectiveness of ruxolitinib versus best available therapy for the treatment of myelofibrosis from public health perspective in Chile. Value Health. 2016;19(7):A590.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hahl J, Kurki S, Miettinen T, et al. Cost-effectiveness of ruxolitinib for the treatment of myelofibrosis in Finland. Economic evaluation based on Finnish AURIA biobank data on health care resource utilization. Value Health. 2015;18(7):A669.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liberato NL, Quaglini S, Barosi G. Cost-effectiveness of interferon alfa in chronic myelogenous leukemia. J Clin Oncol. 1997;15(7):2673–2682.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoffman VS, Baccarani M, Hasford J, et al. Treatment and outcome of 2904 CML patients from the EUTOS population-based registry. Leukemia. 2017;31(3):593–601.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ohm L, Lundqvist A, Dickman P, et al. Real-world cost-effectiveness of chronic myeloid leukemia: the price of success during four decades of development from non-targeted treatment to imatinib. Leuk Lymphoma. 2015;56(5):1385–1391.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reed SD, Anstrom KJ, Ludmer JA, et al. Cost-effectiveness of imatinib versus interferon-alpha plus low-dose cytarabine for patients with newly diagnosed chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukemia. Cancer. 2004;101(11):2574–2583.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dalziel K, Round A, Garside R, et al. Cost-effectiveness of imatinib compared with interferon-alpha or hydroxycarbamide for first-line treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia. Pharmacoeconomics. 2005;23(5):515–526.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kwon H, Park J, Shin M, et al. Assessment of major molecular response (MMR) and complete cytogenetic response /CCYR) as surrogate outcomes of survival in chronic myeloid leukemia chronic phase (CML-CP) patients. Value Health. 2015;18(7):A432.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gurion R, Raani P, Vidal L, et al. First-line treatment with newer tyrosin kinase inhibitors in chronic myeloid leukemia associated with deep and durable molecular response – systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Oncol. 2016;55(9–10):1077–1083.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haguet H, Douxfils J, Mullier F, et al. Risk of arterial and venous occlusive events in chronic myeloid leukemia patients treated with new generation BCR-ABL tyrosine kinase inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2017;16(5–12):1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loveman E, Cooper K, Bryant J, et al. Dasatinib, high-dose imatinib and nilotinib for the treatment of imatinib-resistant chronic myeloid leukaemia: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assessment. 2012;16(23):1–137.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ammann EM, Schanafelt TD, Wright KB, et al. Updating survival estimates in patients with chronic lymhocytic leukemia or small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) based on treatment-free interval. Leuk Lymphoma. 2017;Jul:1–7.
   Google Scholar
• Gaidano G, Foa R, Dalla-Favera R. Molecular pathogenesis of chronic lymphocytic leukemia. J Clin Invest. 2012;122(10):3432–3438.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shanafelt TD, Borah BJ, Finnes HD, et al. Impact of ibrutinib and idelalisib on the pharmaceutical cost of treating chronic lymphocytic leukemia at the individual and societal levels. J Oncol Practice. 2015;11(3):252–258.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burger JA, Tedeschi A, Barr PM, et al. Ibrutinib as initial therapy for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(25):2425–2437.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vannucchi AM, Kantarjian HM, Kiladjian JJ, et al. A pooled analysis of overall survival in COMFORT I and COMFORT II, 2 randomized phase II trials of ruxolitinib for the treatment of myelofibrosis. Haematologica. 2015;100(9):1139–1145.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• El Ouagari K, Knight CJ, Mendelson ET. Cost-effectiveness of ruxolitinib versus best-available therapy for medical treatment of myelofibrosis: Canadian societal perspective. Blood. 2012;120:21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mukuria C, Rowen D, Brazier JE, et al. Deriving a preference-based measure for myelofibrosis from the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the MF-SAF. Value Health. 2015;18(6):846–855.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hill A, Gotham D, Fortunak J, et al. Target prices for mass production of tyrosine kinase inhibitors for global cancer treatment. BMJ Open. 2016;6:e009586.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Becker DJ, Lin D, Lee S. Exploration of the ASCO and ESMO value frameworks for antineoplastic drugs. J Oncol Pract. 2017;13: e653-e665. epub ahead of print.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beusterien KM, Davies J, Leach M, et al. Population preference values for treatment outcomes in chronic lymphocytic leukaemia: a cross-sectional utility study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010;8:50.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mesa RA, Gotlib J, Gupta V, et al. Effect of ruxolitinib therapy on myelofibrosis-related symptoms and other patient-reported outcomes in COMFORT-I: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(10):1285–1292.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soini E, Hautala A, Poikonen E, Becker U, Kyttälä M, Martikainen J. Cost-effectiveness of first-line chronic lymphocytic leukemia treatments when full-dose fludarabine is unsuitable. Clin Ther. 2016;38:889–890.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin J, Makenbaeva D, Lingohr-Smith M, et al. Healthcare and economic burden of adverse events among patients with chronic myelogenous leukemia treated with BCR-ABL1 tyrosine kinase inhibitors. J Med Econ. 2017 Mar;12:1–5.
   Google Scholar
• Lichtenberg FR. The impact of pharmaceutical innovation on premature cancer mortality in Canada, 2000-2001. Int J Health Econ Manag. 2015;15(3):339–359.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar