» Articles » PMID: 39220274

Cost-utility Analysis of Romiplostim for the Treatment of Chronic Primary Immune Thrombocytopenia in China

Overview
Date 2024 Sep 2
PMID 39220274
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

This study aimed to assess the cost-utility of romiplostim (ROMI) compared to eltrombopag (EPAG) as a second-line treatment for chronic primary immune thrombocytopenia (cITP) in Chinese adults. A decision tree-embedded Markov model with a lifetime horizon was used to estimate the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs for ROMI versus EPAG from the perspective of the Chinese health care system. The model was driven by platelet response with a 4-week cycle. Both QALYs and costs were discounted 5% per year. Clinical data comparing ROMI and EPAG were obtained by matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC), utilizing individual patient data on ROMI and published Chinese Phase III trial data on EPAG. Costs were reported in 2022 US dollars and included drug acquisition costs, monitoring costs, bleeding-related costs, and costs associated with adverse events. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. The CEA model indicated that treatment with ROMI resulted in an average of $4,344.4 higher costs for 0.004 QALYs. One-way sensitivity analysis (OSA) indicated that the model was most sensitive to the high bleeding rate in response (Markov stage) for EPAG and ROMI. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) indicated that ROMI was likely to be cost effective in 0.16% cases at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $12039.1 (China per capita GDP in 2022) per QALY. If the price of ROMI is either lower than or equal to that of EPAG, ROMI could likely be considered cost-effective as a second-line treatment for Chinese adults with cITP.

References
1.
Allen R, Bryden P, Grotzinger K, Stapelkamp C, Woods B . Cost-Effectiveness of Eltrombopag versus Romiplostim for the Treatment of Chronic Immune Thrombocytopenia in England and Wales. Value Health. 2016; 19(5):614-22. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.03.1856. View

2.
Szende A, Brazier J, Schaefer C, Deuson R, Isitt J, Vyas P . Measurement of utility values in the UK for health states related to immune thrombocytopenic purpura. Curr Med Res Opin. 2010; 26(8):1893-903. DOI: 10.1185/03007995.2010.494126. View

3.
Neunert C, Terrell D, Arnold D, Buchanan G, Cines D, Cooper N . American Society of Hematology 2019 guidelines for immune thrombocytopenia. Blood Adv. 2019; 3(23):3829-3866. PMC: 6963252. DOI: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2019000966. View

4.
Tremblay G, Dolph M, Roy A, Said Q, Forsythe A . The Cost-effectiveness of Eltrombopag for the Treatment of Immune Thrombocytopenia in the United States. Clin Ther. 2020; 42(5):860-872.e8. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2020.02.020. View

5.
Zhou H, Xu M, Qin P, Zhang H, Yuan C, Zhao H . A multicenter randomized open-label study of rituximab plus rhTPO vs rituximab in corticosteroid-resistant or relapsed ITP. Blood. 2015; 125(10):1541-7. PMC: 4351949. DOI: 10.1182/blood-2014-06-581868. View