The economic research of arsenic trioxide for the treatment of newly diagnosed acute promyelocytic leukemia in China.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to conduct the first systematic evaluation of the long-term economic impact of arsenic trioxide (ATO) plus all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) for the treatment of patients with newly diagnosed acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) from the perspective of the Chinese health care system. METHODS: On the basis of clinical data from a randomized phase 3 trial, a time-dependent Markov model with 4 health states (complete remission, relapse or treatment failure, post-treatment failure, and death) was used to evaluate the incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained from the ATO plus ATRA regimen compared with the ATRA plus chemotherapy (CT) regimen over a 30-year period. All costs were adjusted to 2018 levels based on the Chinese Consumer Price Index. Both costs and health outcomes were discounted by 3% annually. One-way sensitivity analysis and probability sensitivity analysis were performed. RESULTS: Compared with the ATRA plus CT strategy, the ATO plus ATRA strategy was associated with 1.38 additional QALYs gained and $392.05 (estimated in 2018 US dollars) in incremental costs per patient over 30 years. Consequently, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $284.02 per QALY gained, which was far below the Chinese willingness-to-pay threshold of $29,306 per QALY gained. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated the robustness of these results. CONCLUSIONS: From the perspective of the Chinese health care system, the ATO plus ATRA strategy is cost-effective for patients with newly diagnosed APL compared with the ATRA plus CT strategy. Therefore, the authors strongly suggest that China's health authorities choose the former strategy for these patients, whether for the elderly or for young people.

Resource utilization and cost effectiveness of treating acute promyelocytic leukaemia using generic arsenic trioxide.

Arsenic trioxide (ATO)-based regimens are the standard of care for treating acute promyelocytic leukaemia (APL) and have replaced chemotherapy-based approaches. However, the cost of "patented" ATO is prohibitive because of patent rights. "Generic" ATO has been used in a few countries, but its implications for health resource utilization (HRU) and cost of treatment are unknown. We hypothesized that treating APL patients using generic ATO (APL-ATO) will be cost effective compared to the chemotherapy-based regimen (APL-CT). In a single-centre retrospective study, we used a bottom-up costing method to compare the direct medical cost of treatment and HRU between APL-ATO and APL-CT. These costs and the survival and relapse probabilities were imputed in a three-state Markov decision model to estimate the cost effectiveness of APL-ATO compared to APL-CT. The mean cost of treatment for APL-ATO (n = 30, $8500 ± 2078) was significantly less than for APL-CT (n = 30, $22 600 ± 5528) (P < 0·001). APL-ATO reduced hospitalization, antibiotic and antifungal usage (P < 0·001). In the Markov model, five-year treatment costs were significantly lower for APL-ATO ($11 131) than for APL-CT ($17 926) (P < 0·001). Treatment cost and health resource utilization were significantly lower for generic ATO-treated APL patients compared to the chemotherapy-based regimen.

Arsenic Trioxide for Treating Acute Promyelocytic Leukaemia: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited Teva, the company manufacturing arsenic trioxide (ATO; tradename Trisenox®), to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of ATO for untreated and relapsed or refractory acute promyelocytic leukaemia (APL). Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd (KSR), in collaboration with Maastricht University Medical Center, was commissioned as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper presents a summary of the company submission (CS), the ERG's critical review of the clinical and cost effectiveness evidence in the CS, key methodological considerations and the development of the NICE guidance by the Appraisal Committee (AC). The CS presented three randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Two of these were trials in newly diagnosed APL (APL0406 and AML17) and the third trial was in patients with relapsed APL. Results from APL0406 showed that more people having AATO [ATO plus all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA)] were alive at 50 months compared with people having AIDA (ATRA in combination with idarubicin) (99% vs. 93%; p = 0.007). There was also a statistically significant lower cumulative incidence of relapse with AATO compared with AIDA at 50 months (2% vs. 14%; p = 0.001). At 4 years, results from AML17 showed a significant difference in event-free survival (91% vs. 70%; p = 0.002) favouring AATO but not in overall survival (93% vs. 89%; p = 0.250). The only trial presented for relapsed/refractory patients compared AATO with ATO, which was not a relevant comparison according to the NICE scope. The AC concluded that AATO was effective for untreated APL while for relapsed or refractory APL the effectiveness of ATO was considered uncertain and the long-term safety remains unexplored. In the CS base-case, AATO was less expensive (£31,088 saved) and more effective (2.546 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained) than AIDA and thus the dominating strategy for newly diagnosed low- to intermediate-risk APL. However, the ERG's critical assessment highlighted a number of concerns, including deviations from the NICE reference case and a lack of detailed description and justification of parameters and assumptions related to (the extrapolation of) treatment effectiveness. However, it was reassuring that AATO for untreated APL remained dominant in the ERG base-case, and that the worst-case scenario produced by the ERG resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £21,622. The AC concluded that although there was uncertainty in the model, it could recommend ATO for both untreated and relapsed or refractory APL.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Treating Acute Promyelocytic Leukemia Patients With Arsenic Trioxide and Retinoic Acid in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: This study estimated the cost-effectiveness of arsenic trioxide (ATO) added to all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) when used in first-line acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Markov cohort model was developed with 3 states: stable disease (during first- or second-line treatment), disease event, and death. Newly diagnosed patients with low- to intermediate-risk APL were included and each month could remain in their current health state or move to another. Treatment consisted of ATO + ATRA, ATRA + idarubicin (IDA), or ATRA + cytarabine (AraC) + additional chemotherapy. After an initial disease event, patients discontinued first-line therapy and switched to a second-line ATO regimen. Efficacy and safety data were obtained from published trials; quality of life/utility estimates were obtained from the literature; costs were obtained from US data sources. Costs and outcomes over time were used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Compared to ATRA + AraC + additional chemotherapy, ATRA + IDA treatment had ICERs of $2933 per life-year (LY) saved and $3122 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Compared to the ATRA + IDA regimen, first-line ATO + ATRA treatment had ICERs of $4512 per LY saved and $5614 per QALY gained. Results were sensitive to changes in pharmacy costs of the ATO + ATRA regimen during consolidation. CONCLUSION: The ATO + ATRA regimen is highly cost-effective compared to ATRA + AraC + additional chemotherapy or ATRA + IDA in the treatment of newly diagnosed low- to intermediate-risk APL patients.

Reduced medical costs and hospital days when using oral arsenic plus ATRA as the first-line treatment of acute promyelocytic leukemia.

We have demonstrated that oral arsenic (Realgar-Indigo naturalis formula, RIF) plus all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) is not inferior to intravenous arsenic trioxide (ATO) plus ATRA as the first-line treatment of acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL). To compare the cost-effectiveness of oral and intravenous arsenic, we analyzed the results of 30 patients in each group involved in a randomized controlled trial at our center. The median total medical costs were $13,183.49 in the RIF group compared with $24136.98 in the ATO group (p<0.0001). This difference primarily resulted from the different costs of induction therapy (p=0.016) and maintenance treatment (p<0.0001). The length of hospitalization for the RIF group was significantly lower than that for the ATO group (24 vs. 31 days, p<0.0001) during induction therapy. During maintenance treatment, the estimated medical costs were $2047.14 for each patient in the RIF group treated at home compared with $11273.81 for each patient in the ATO group treated in an outpatient setting (p<0.0001). We conclude that oral RIF plus ATRA significantly reduced the medical costs and length of hospital stay during induction and remission therapy compared with ATO plus ATRA in APL patients.

Budgetary impact of treating acute promyelocytic leukemia patients with first-line arsenic trioxide and retinoic acid from an Italian payer perspective.

The objective of this study was to estimate the net cost of arsenic trioxide (ATO) added to all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) compared to ATRA plus chemotherapy when used in first-line acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) treatment for low to intermediate risk patients from the perspective of the overall Italian healthcare systemA Markov model was developed with 3 health states: stable disease, disease event and death. Each month, patients could move from stable to disease event or die from either state. After a disease event, patients discontinued initial treatment and switched to the other regimen as second-line therapy. Treatment regimens, efficacy and adverse events were derived from published sources and expert opinion; unit costs were collected from standard Italian sources. Clinical outcomes and costs for pre-ATO and post-ATO scenarios were combined with population and product utilization information to calculate the total budgetary impact using a 3-year time horizon; one-way sensitivity analyses were conducted. Three-year cumulative pharmacy costs for ATO+ATRA were €46,700 per-patient versus €6,500 for ATRA+chemotherapy; however, medical costs for ATO+ATRA were €12,300 per-patient versus €30,200 for ATRA+chemotherapy. The total budgetary impact was estimated to be an additional €127,300, €312,500 and €477,800 in the first, second and third years, respectively. The model was most sensitive to changes in the cost of the ATO+ATRA regimen during the consolidation phase. Budgetary impact models are valuable to payers making formulary decisions regarding the access and affordability of new medicines. The cost of treatment analysis showed that pharmacy costs for ATO+ATRA were higher than for ATRA+chemotherapy, while all other evaluated costs were lower for ATO+ATRA treated patients. The average budgetary impact was €305,900 per year overall, representing a 3.5% increase. Further research is needed to determine the cost-effectiveness of ATO+ATRA compared to the current first-line standard of care in APL.

Morbidity and costs of remission induction therapy with all-trans retinoic acid compared with standard chemotherapy in acute promyelocytic leukemia.

With the recent pressure to control health care expenditures, the costs of patient participation in clinical trials, especially in their earliest phases, have come under increasingly intense scrutiny. We therefore reviewed our experience in patients with acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) who were treated during the first US trial of a new experimental drug, all-trans retinoic acid (RA). The purpose of the review was to evaluate parameters of patient morbidity and financial cost associated with the use of all-trans RA compared with standard chemotherapy for induction of complete remission in newly-diagnosed patients with APL. We retrospectively compared outcomes of consecutive patients treated during the first 2 years of our studies that used all-trans RA for remission induction (1990-1992) with an identical number of patients consecutively treated with standard chemotherapy (cytosine arabinoside plus an anthracycline) during the immediately preceding period (1985-1990). Responding patients in both groups received post-remission chemotherapy. Evaluation parameters included transfusions of packed red blood cells and platelets, use of anti-bacterial and anti-fungal drugs, duration of fever, time to remission, length of hospital stay, hospital charges, and both overall and relapse-free survival. Thirty patients were evaluated in each group. Complete remission was achieved in 26 patients (87%) treated with all-trans RA, and 24 patients (77%) treated with chemotherapy (p = 0.5). In the chemotherapy group, there were five early deaths (four from hemorrhage, one from sepsis); one other patient was resistant to treatment and died at 6 months. Four patients in the all-trans RA group died prior to response from complications of the 'retinoic acid syndrome'. The median time to complete response by all criteria was 41 days (range, 18-78) for the all-trans RA group and 50 days (range, 24-121) for patients who received conventional chemotherapy (p = 0.2). Looking only at patients who achieved remission, chemotherapy-treated patients required a significantly greater number of platelet transfusions (medians, 14 vs. 4; p < 0.001) and packed red blood cell transfusions (15 vs. 4; p < 0.001). Patients who received chemotherapy also experienced a significantly larger number of days with fever (13 vs. 6; p = 0.01) that was reflected in a greater median number of days on combination antibiotics (35 vs. 21; p = 0.001) and Amphotericin B (20 vs. 0; p < 0.001).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)