Cost-effectiveness of postremission intensive therapy in patients with acute leukemia

Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, Taipei-Veterans General Hospital, Taiwan 11217, Republic of China.
Annals of Oncology (Impact Factor: 7.04). 04/2007; 18(3):529-34. DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdl420
Source: PubMed


We assessed the cost-effectiveness of high-dose arabinoside (HiDAC)-based and allogeneic stem-cell transplantation (alloSCT)-based therapy in patients with acute leukemia.
We analyzed the outcome, cost and cost-effectiveness of 106 patients treated from January 1994 to January 2002 [94 acute myelogenous leukemia (AML)/12 acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL)]. Forty-two young patients at either intermediate or unknown cytogenetic risk received postremission intensive therapy (24 HiDAC-based/18 alloSCT-based therapy).
After a median follow-up of 50 months, the estimated 7-year overall survival for the HiDAC-based group showed a tendency to be higher than the alloSCT-based group (48% versus 28%, P = 0.1452). The HiDAC-based group spent a significantly lower total cost ($US51,857 versus 75,474, P = 0.004) than the alloSCT-based group. Cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the mean cost per year of life saved for the HiDAC-based group is considerably less expensive than the alloSCT-based group ($US11,224 versus 21,564). The reduced total cost for the HiDAC-based group originated from lower cost in room fees, medication, laboratory and procedure, but not in blood transfusion and professional manpower fees.
For the postremission therapy in young AML patients at either intermediate or unknown cytogenetic risk, cost-effectiveness of HiDAC-based therapy compares favorably with that of alloSCT-based therapy, which deserves further clinical trials.

Download full-text


Available from: Yuan-Bin Yu, Mar 06, 2014
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Allogeneic transplantation in patients with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia in first remission (ALL-CR1) has been studied in several clinical trials. However, no pooled survival analysis has yet been done. We conducted a survival meta-analysis to compare allogeneic transplantation vs chemotherapy or autologous transplantation using an intention-to-treat approach. Our study included the controlled clinical trials, wherein allocation to allogeneic transplant was based on donor availability. The event-free individual survival data were reconstructed on the basis of published information and Kaplan-Meier graphs. We then generated the meta-analytic event-free survival curves for the two treatments. The mean survival gain per patient was estimated and a simplified cost-effectiveness assessment was carried out. In the allogeneic transplantation group, 293 patients were examined and 479 as controls (four trials). The event-free survival difference was statistically significant (P=0.011). The relative risk for event occurrence was 0.79 for the experimental group vs the controls (95% CI: 0.66-0.96; P=0.017). The mean survival gain was 1 year per patient. The cost per life-year gained was less than the conventional threshold of 50,000 euros. Allogeneic transplantation in ALL-CR1 improves event-free survival as compared to chemotherapy or autologous transplantation. Its cost-effectiveness profile is acceptable.
    Bone Marrow Transplantation 11/2007; 40(7):643-9. DOI:10.1038/sj.bmt.1705790 · 3.57 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Acute leukaemia is a group of rapidly progressing cancers of bone marrow and blood classified as either acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) or acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL). Haemopoietic stem cell transplantation (SCT) has developed as an adjunct to or replacement for conventional chemotherapy with the aim of improving survival and quality of life. A systematic overview of the best available evidence on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of SCT in the treatment of acute leukaemia. Clinical effectiveness: electronic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library, were searched from inception to December 2008 to identify published systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Science Citation Index (SCI) were searched from 1997 to March 2009 to identify primary studies. Cost-effectiveness: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) were searched from inception to January 2009. Potentially relevant papers were retrieved and independently checked against predefined criteria by two reviewers (one in the case of the cost-effectiveness review). STUDY APPRAISAL: Included reviews and meta-analyses were critically appraised and data extracted and narratively presented. Included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and donor versus no donor (DvND) studies were mapped to the evidence covered in existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses according to a framework of 12 decision problems (DPs): DP1 related to SCT in adults with AML in first complete remission (CR1); DP2 to adults with AML in second or subsequent remission or with refractory disease (CR2+); DP3 to children with AML in CR1; DP4 to children with AML in CR2+; DP5 to adults with ALL in CR1; DP6 to adults with ALL in CR2+; DP7 to children with ALL in CR1; DP8 to children with ALL in CR2+; DP9 to comparison of different sources of stem cells in transplantation; DP10 to different conditioning regimens; DP11 to the use of purging in autologous SCT; and DP12 to the use of T-cell depletion in allogeneic SCT. Fifteen systematic reviews/meta-analyses met the inclusion criteria for the review of clinical effectiveness, thirteen of which were published from 2004 onwards. Taking into account the timing of their publications, most reviews appeared to have omitted an appreciable proportion of potentially available evidence. The best available evidence for effectiveness of allogeneic SCT using stem cells from matched sibling donors came from DvND studies: there was sufficient evidence to support the use of allogeneic SCT in DP1 (except in good-risk patients), DP3 (role of risk stratification unclear) and DP5 (role of risk stratification unclear). There was conflicting evidence in DP7 and a paucity of evidence from DvND studies for all decision problems concerning patient groups in CR2+. The best available evidence for effectiveness of autologous SCT came from RCTs: overall, evidence suggested that autologous SCT was either similar to or less effective than chemotherapy. There was a paucity of evidence from published reviews of RCTs for DPs 9-12. Nineteen studies met the inclusion criteria in the cost-effectiveness review, most reporting only cost information and only one incorporating an economic model. Although there is a wealth of information on costs and some information on cost-effectiveness of allogeneic SCT in adults with AML (DPs 1 and 2), there is very limited evidence on relative costs and cost-effectiveness for other DPs. Time and resources did not permit critical appraisal of the primary studies on which the reviews/meta-analyses reviewed were based; there were substantial differences in methodologies, and consequently quantitative synthesis of data was neither planned in the protocol nor carried out; some of the studies were quite old and might not reflect current practice; and a number of the studies might not be applicable to the UK. Bearing in mind the limitations, existing evidence suggests that sibling donor allogeneic SCT may be more effective than chemotherapy in adult AML (except in good-risk patients) in CR1, childhood AML in CR1 and adult ALL in CR1, and that autologous SCT is equal to or less effective than chemotherapy. No firm conclusions could be drawn regarding the cost-effectiveness of SCT in the UK NHS owing to the limitations given above. Future research should include the impact of the treatments on patients' quality of life as well as information on health service use and costs associated with SCT from the perspective of the UK NHS.
    Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) 12/2010; 14(54):iii-iv, ix-xi, 1-141. DOI:10.3310/hta14540 · 5.03 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: High-dose arabinoside (HiDAC) and daunorubicin (DNR)-based chemotherapy are the primary consolidation treatment options for older adults (50-60 years old) with acute myeloid leukemia in China. We analyzed the event-free survival (EFS) and hospital treatment charges of older adult patients with different cytogenetic risk profiles. In patients with a better/intermediate risk profile, the average total treatment cost of HiDAC was similar to that of DNR (P = 0.11). A 5-year follow-up of patients with better/intermediate cytogenetic risk profiles revealed that the median EFS of patients who received HiDAC was significantly longer than for patients who received the DNR-based regimen (27 vs. 20 months, P = 0.03). Average cost per year of life saved was 18,746.84 USD for HiDAC, compared to 32,733.37 USD for DNR. In contrast, for patients with a poor cytogenetic risk profile, the average total treatment cost for HiDAC was higher than for DNR (P < 0.005). In addition, the median EFS in the HiDAC protocol group was significantly lower than in the DNR group (11 vs. 20 months, P = 0.003). Meanwhile, in this risk group, the average cost per year of life saved was 103,237.70 USD compared to 32,277.93 USD, respectively, in the HiDAC and DNR regimens. We conclude that HiDAC is a more efficacious and cost-effective consolidation treatment regimen in the better/intermediate risk group, while the DNR-based regimen is more cost-effective in the poor risk group.
    International journal of hematology 03/2011; 93(4):474-81. DOI:10.1007/s12185-011-0804-0 · 1.92 Impact Factor
Show more