Dasatinib, high-dose imatinib and nilotinib for the treatment of imatinib-resistant chronic myeloid leukaemia: a systematic review and economic evaluation

Economic Model to Evaluate the Cost-Effectiveness of Second-Line Nilotinib Versus Dasatinib for the Treatment of Philadelphia Chromosome-Positive Chronic Myeloid Leukemia (CML-CP) in Italy

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of second-line nilotinib versus dasatinib for the treatment of Philadelphia chromosome-positive chronic myeloid leukemia (CML-CP) patients who are intolerant or resistant to imatinib and can transition to treatment-free remission (TFR).

METHODS

A partitioned survival model was developed to compare the cost effectiveness of nilotinib versus dasatinib. The model was developed from the Italian healthcare payer perspective and included the following health states: on second-line tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), off second-line TKI, accelerated phase/blastic crisis, TFR, and death. Progression-free and overall survival curves were derived from patient-level data that compared nilotinib and dasatinib as second-line therapy in CML-CP patients who were resistant or intolerant to imatinib. Drug costs, healthcare costs, and adverse event costs were based on real-world evidence and publicly available databases. Cost effectiveness was estimated over a 40-year time horizon. Scenario analyses were performed by adjusting time horizon, TFR parameters, costs, and utilities.

RESULTS

Second-line nilotinib resulted in greater time spent in TFR (0.91 life-years), increased quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (1.89), increased life-years (2.16), and decreased per-patient costs (- 38,760 €). Therefore, nilotinib was strongly dominant compared with dasatinib in the base-case analysis. Nilotinib remained strongly dominant in most scenario analyses including shorter time horizon, exclusion of TFR, and varying TKI drug costs.

CONCLUSIONS

While the model showed that nilotinib treatment of imatinib-intolerant or resistant CML-CP patients was more effective and less costly than dasatinib treatment, there is considerable uncertainty in the findings.

An overview of the characteristics and quality assessment criteria in systematic review of pharmacoeconomics

BACKGROUND

The systematic review of economic evaluations plays a critical role in making well-informed decisions about competing healthcare interventions. The quality of these systematic reviews varies due to the lack of internationally recognized methodological evaluation standards.

METHODS

Nine English and Chinese databases including the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMbase (Ovid), NHS economic evaluation database (NHSEED) (Ovid), Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), WangFang, VIP Chinese Science & Technology Periodicals (VIP) and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) were searched. Two reviewers independently screened studies and extracted data. The methodological quality of the literature was measured with modified AMSTAR. Data were narrative synthesized.

RESULTS

165 systematic reviews were included. The overall methodological quality of the literature was moderate according to the AMSTAR scale. In these articles, thirteen quality assessment tools and 32 author self-defined criteria were used. The three most widely used tools were the Drummond checklist (19.4%), the BMJ checklist (15.8%), the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement (12.7%). Others included the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES), the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC), the checklist of Center for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD), the Philips checklist, the World Health Organization (WHO) checklist, the checklist of Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP), the Pediatric Quality Appraisal Questionnaire (PQAQ), the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist, Spanish and Chinese guidelines. The quantitative scales used in these literature were the QHES and PQAQ.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence showed that pharmacoeconomic systematic reviews' methodology remained to be improved, and the quality assessment criteria were gradually unified. Multiple scales can be used in combination to evaluate the quality of economic research in different settings and types.

Economic Evaluations of Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors for Patients with Chronic Myeloid Leukemia in Middle- and High-Income Countries: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this systematic review was to conduct a comprehensive assessment of economic evaluations of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) in middle- and high-income countries.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted in Embase, MEDLINE (via PubMed) and the Cochrane library on March 3, 2018 to identify economic evaluations of chronic myeloid leukemia that met the inclusion criteria. Data on such parameters as patient characteristics, cost components, and main outcomes were extracted from eligible studies.

RESULTS

The literature review retrieved 798 studies, 17 of which fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Eight studies included an economic analysis on newly diagnosed patients with CML. Seven studies investigated people with CML who were resistant or intolerant to standard-dose imatinib. One article focused on chronic phase (CP)-CML patients who experienced failure with first-line treatment for interferon-α. The last study investigated advanced stages of CML patients. Most studies (n = 70.6%) were conducted in high-income countries. Only five studies (n = 29.4%) were performed in middle-income countries. Most studies used a Markov model. The time horizon varied from six months to life-time.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite high costs, the included studies indicate that imatinib regimens are cost effective in newly diagnosed patients with CP-CML. For people with CML who are resistant or intolerant to standard-dose imatinib, dasatinib is likely to be a more cost-effective strategy in middle-income countries. More studies are necessary to assess the long-term efficacy and cost effectiveness of novel treatment options.

Ponatinib for Treating Chronic Myeloid Leukaemia: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal

As part of its single technology appraisal process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the company that manufactures ponatinib (Inclusig^®; Incyte Corporation) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness for previously treated chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML) and Philadelphia-chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (Ph+ ALL). This paper focusses on the three phases of CML: the chronic phase (CP), the accelerated phase (AP) and the blast crisis phase (BP). The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article presents the critical review of the company's submission by the ERG and the outcome of the NICE guidance. Clinical evidence for ponatinib was derived from a phase II, industry-sponsored, single-arm, open-label, multicentre, non-comparative study. Despite the limited evidence and potential for biases, this study demonstrated that ponatinib was likely to be an effective treatment (in terms of major cytogenetic response and major haematological response) with an acceptable safety profile for patients with CML. Given the absence of any head-to-head studies comparing ponatinib with other relevant comparators, the company undertook a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) of ponatinib with bosutinib. The approach was only used for patients with CP-CML because comprehensive data were not available for the AP- or BP-CML groups to allow the matching technique to be used. Despite the uncertainty about the MAIC approach, ponatinib was considered likely to offer advantages over bosutinib in the third-line setting, particularly for complete cytogenetic response. The company developed two health economic models to assess the cost effectiveness of ponatinib for the treatment of patients in CP-CML or in advanced CML (AP- or BP-CML, which were modelled separately). The company did not adequately explore the uncertainty in the survivor functions. As a result, the ERG believed the uncertainty in the decision problem was underestimated. Exploratory analyses undertaken by the ERG produced the following results for ponatinib. In CP-CML, from £18,246 to £27,667 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained compared with best supportive care (BSC), from £19,680 to £37,381 per QALY gained compared with bosutinib and from £18,279 per QALY gained to dominated compared with allogeneic stem cell transplant (allo-SCT). In AP-CML, the cost per QALY gained for ponatinib ranged from £7123 to £17,625 compared with BSC, and from dominating to £61,896 per QALY gained compared with allo-SCT. In BP-CML, the cost effectiveness of ponatinib ranged from £5033 per QALY gained to dominated compared with allo-SCT, although it was likely to be at the more favourable end of this range, and dominant in all scenarios compared with BSC. The NICE appraisal committee concluded that ponatinib is a cost-effective use of NHS resources in the considered population, subject to the company providing the agreed discount in the Patient Access Scheme.

Ponatinib for Treating Acute Lymphoblastic Leukaemia: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal

As part of its single technology appraisal (STA) process, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Incyte Corporation) of ponatinib (Inclusig^®) to submit evidence of its clinical and cost effectiveness for previously treated Philadelphia-chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (Ph+ ALL) and chronic myeloid leukaemia. This paper focusses on Ph+ ALL. The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent evidence review group (ERG). This article presents the critical review of the company's submission by the ERG and the outcome of the NICE guidance. The clinical-effectiveness evidence in the company's submission was derived from a phase II, single-arm, open-label, non-comparative study. Given the lack of comparative evidence, a naïve indirect comparison was performed against re-induction chemotherapy comparing major cytogenetic response and complete remission. Best supportive care (BSC) was assumed to produce no disease response. Despite the limited evidence and potential for biases, this study demonstrated that ponatinib was likely to be an effective treatment for patients with Ph+ ALL. The company submitted a state transition model that analysed the incremental cost effectiveness of ponatinib versus re-induction therapy and BSC for the treatment of Ph+ ALL in patients whose disease is resistant to dasatinib, who are intolerant to dasatinib and for whom subsequent treatment with imatinib is not clinically appropriate or who have the threonine-315-isoleucine mutation. This population was further subdivided into those who were suitable for allogeneic stem cell transplant (allo-SCT) and those who were not. The company's revised economic evaluation, following the clarification process, estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in those suitable for allo-SCT of £31,123 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for ponatinib compared with re-induction chemotherapy and £26,624 per QALY gained compared with BSC. For those for whom allo-SCT was unsuitable, the company-estimated ICER compared with BSC was £33,954 per QALY gained. Following a critique of the model, the ERG undertook exploratory analyses that, when combined, produced a range in ICERs (due to uncertainty of the most appropriate overall survival function) of dominant (being less expensive and providing more QALYs) to £11,727 per QALY gained compared with re-induction chemotherapy and between £7892 and £31,696 per QALY gained compared with BSC for those in whom allo-SCT was suitable. For those in whom allo-SCT was not suitable, the ERG estimated that ponatinib was dominant. During the consultation period, the company agreed a revised patient access scheme (PAS) that reduced the ICER ranges to £7156 to £29,995 per QALY gained versus BSC and to less than £5000 per QALY gained versus re-induction chemotherapy. In people for whom allo-SCT was unsuitable, ponatinib dominated BSC. The NICE appraisal committee concluded that ponatinib is a cost-effective use of UK NHS resources in the considered population, subject to the company providing the agreed discount in the PAS.

Excellent outcomes of 2G-TKI therapy after imatinib failure in chronic phase CML patients

Second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors (2G-TKIs) dasatinib and nilotinib produced historical rates of about 50% complete cytogenetic response (CCyR) and about 40% major molecular response (MMR) in chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML) patients failing imatinib. Direct comparisons between dasatinib and nilotinib are lacking, and few studies addressed the dynamics of deep molecular response (DMR) in a "real-life" setting. We retrospectively analyzed 163 patients receiving dasatinib (n = 95) or nilotinib (n = 68) as second-line therapy after imatinib. The two cohorts were comparable for disease's characteristics, although there was a higher rate of dasatinib use in imatinib-resistant and of nilotinib in intolerant patients. Overall, 75% patients not in CCyR and 60% patients not in MMR at 2G-TKI start attained this response. DMR was achieved by 61 patients (37.4%), with estimated rate of stable DMR at 5 years of 24%. After a median follow-up of 48 months, 60% of patients persisted on their second-line treatment. Rates and kinetics of cytogenetic and molecular responses, progression-free and overall survival were similar for dasatinib and nilotinib. In a "real-life" setting, dasatinib and nilotinib resulted equally effective and safe after imatinib failure, determining high rates of CCyR and MMR, and a significant chance of stable DMR, a prerequisite for treatment discontinuation.

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

INTRODUCTION

Several genetic disruptions lead to constitutive activation of those kinases leukemic cells depend on for survival and proliferation. Kinase inhibitors (KI) are major therapeutic innovations for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), chronic lymphoid leukemia (CLL) and myelofibrosis (MF) providing a relevant improvement of quality-adjusted survival in patients with high-risk or refractory disease. CML patients are being treated with first-generation KI imatinib since many years, achieving expected survivals longer than 10 years. Second- and third generations KIs, such as nilotinib, dasatinib, ponatinib and bosutinib, recently expanded the therapeutic yield for CML and treatment discontinuation in patients with persistent deep molecular response is being pursued. Areas covered: This review summarizes available evidence on economic analyses of KI treatments for CML, CLL and MF aimed at identifying the key determinants of KI cost-effectiveness. Expert commentary: On converse, specific KIs for CLL and MF patients have been marketed only in the last few years. Ibrutinib and idelalisib allowed to improve the outcomes of relapsed/refractory CLL and of patients with poor genetic features, while the first-in-class JAK2 inhibitor ruxolitinib allowed to improve symptoms of advanced MF patients and to prolong survival in responders. In the current situation of healthcare budget restrictions worldwide, the value for cost of the above KIs has been questioned.

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

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of second-line nilotinib vs dasatinib among patients with Philadelphia chromosome-positive chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase (Ph+ CML-CP) who are resistant or intolerant to imatinib, from a US third-party perspective.

METHODS

A lifetime partitioned survival model was developed to compare the costs and effectiveness of nilotinib vs dasatinib, which included four health states: CP on treatment, CP post-discontinuation, progressive disease (accelerated phase [AP] or blast crisis [BC]), and death. Time on treatment, progression-free survival, and overall survival of nilotinib and dasatinib were estimated using real-world comparative effectiveness data. Parametric survival models were used to extrapolate outcomes beyond the study period. Drug treatment costs, medical costs, and adverse event costs were obtained from the literature and publicly available databases. Utilities of health states were derived from the literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, including incremental cost per life-year (LY) gained and incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, were estimated comparing nilotinib and dasatinib. Deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed by varying patient characteristics, cost, and utility inputs.

RESULTS

Over a lifetime horizon, nilotinib-treated patients were associated with 11.7 LYs, 9.1 QALYs, and a total cost of $1,409,466, while dasatinib-treated patients were associated with 9.5 LYs, 7.3 QALYs, and a total cost of $1,422,122. In comparison with dasatinib, nilotinib was associated with better health outcomes (by 2.2 LYs and 1.9 QALYs) and lower total costs (by $12,655). Deterministic sensitivity analysis results showed consistent findings in most scenarios.

LIMITATIONS

In the absence of long-term real-world data, the lifetime projection could not be validated.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with dasatinib, second-line nilotinib was associated with better life expectancy, better quality-of-life, and lower costs among patients with Ph+ CML-CP who were resistant or intolerant to imatinib.

Economic Evaluations of Pharmaceuticals Granted a Marketing Authorisation Without the Results of Randomised Trials: A Systematic Review and Taxonomy

BACKGROUND

Pharmaceuticals are usually granted a marketing authorisation on the basis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Occasionally the efficacy of a treatment is assessed without a randomised comparator group (either active or placebo).

OBJECTIVE

To identify and develop a taxonomic account of economic modelling approaches for pharmaceuticals licensed without RCT data.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, the websites of UK health technology assessment bodies and the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Scientific Presentations Database for assessments of treatments granted a marketing authorisation by the US Food and Drug Administration or European Medicines Agency from January 1999 to May 2014 without RCT data (74 indications). The outcome of interest was the approach to modelling efficacy data.

RESULTS

Fifty-one unique models were identified in 29 peer-reviewed articles, 30 health technology appraisals, and 15 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research abstracts concerning 30 indications (44 indications had not been modelled). We noted the high rate of non-submission to health technology assessment agencies (28/98). The majority of models (43/51) were based on 'historical controls'-comparisons to previous meta-analysis or pooling of trials (5), individual trials (16), registries/case series (15), or expert opinion (7). Other approaches used the patient as their own control, performed threshold analysis, assumed time on treatment was added to overall survival, or performed cost-minimisation analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

There is considerable variation in the quality and approach of models constructed for drugs granted a marketing authorisation without a RCT. The most common approach is of a naive comparison to historical data (using other trials/registry data as a control group), which has considerable scope for bias.

Estimated generic prices of cancer medicines deemed cost-ineffective in England: a cost estimation analysis

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to estimate lowest possible treatment costs for four novel cancer drugs, hypothesising that generic manufacturing could significantly reduce treatment costs.

SETTING

This research was carried out in a non-clinical research setting using secondary data.

PARTICIPANTS

There were no human participants in the study. Four drugs were selected for the study: bortezomib, dasatinib, everolimus and gefitinib. These medications were selected according to their clinical importance, novel pharmaceutical actions and the availability of generic price data.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Target costs for treatment were to be generated for each indication for each treatment. The primary outcome measure was the target cost according to a production cost calculation algorithm. The secondary outcome measure was the target cost as the lowest available generic price; this was necessary where export data were not available to generate an estimate from our cost calculation algorithm. Other outcomes included patent expiry dates and total eligible treatment populations.

RESULTS

Target prices were £411 per cycle for bortezomib, £9 per month for dasatinib, £852 per month for everolimus and £10 per month for gefitinib. Compared with current list prices in England, these target prices would represent reductions of 74-99.6%. Patent expiry dates were bortezomib 2014-22, dasatinib 2020-26, everolimus 2019-25 and gefitinib 2017. The total global eligible treatment population in 1 year is 769 736.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings demonstrate that affordable drug treatment costs are possible for novel cancer drugs, suggesting that new therapeutic options can be made available to patients and doctors worldwide. Assessing treatment cost estimations alongside cost-effectiveness evaluations is an important area of future research.

Estimation of the prevalence and direct medical costs of chronic myeloid leukemia in the I.R. of Iran in the era of tyrosine kinase inhibitors

BACKGROUND

After the introduction of tyrosine kinase inhibitors for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), the survival of these patients has increased significantly. However, these new drugs are expensive and impose considerable expense to patients and governments. Epidemiologic and economic evaluation studies provide good information for resource allocation and decision making. We estimated the incidence, prevalence and direct medical cost of CML in Iran.

METHODS

We used the National Cancer Registry (NCR) data from 2006 to 2009 to estimate the incidence rate of CML (ICD-10 code C92.1). After adjustment for the underestimation of incidence rates, we used survival rates of CML and estimated the 5-year prevalence for these patients. In addition, we used clinical practice guideline, expert opinions and medical tariffs to estimate the direct medical costs through the prevalence approach.

RESULTS

After an adjustment for the underestimation, the incidence rate of CML was 0.5 per 100 000 in the I.R. of Iran. The 5-year prevalence was about 2263 cases (2.98 per 100 000). The total direct medical cost of CML was $23 089 323 and the majority of the cost (97%) was related to drug costs. The total cost will increase considerably to $40 728 869 if all patients use the new drug nilotinib (800 mg/day) as a second-line treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The increased survival of CML patients and a possible increase in incidence of CML in Iran will most likely lead to a considerable rise in its prevalence and economic burden.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of second-line tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment for chronic myelogenous leukemia

AIM

A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed for sequential treatments of chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) after failure of 1st line imatinib, from a commercial payer perspective in the US.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to simulate lifetime treatment costs and health outcomes for TKI sequences for treatment of patients resistant or intolerant to 1st-line imatinib. Five health states were included, chronic phase 2nd-line TKI, chronic phase 3rd-line TKI, chronic phase post-TKI, advanced phases, and death. Efficacy (response achievement, loss of response, transformation, death) and safety (adverse events incidence, discontinuation) data are based on clinical trials. Resource utilization, costs, and utilities were based on product labels and publically available data. Uncertainty analyses were conducted for key inputs.

RESULTS

In patients failing imatinib, dasatinib-initiating treatment sequences provide the most survival (ΔLYs = 0.2-2.0), QALYs (ΔQALYs = 0.2-1.9), and accrue highest CML-related costs (ΔCosts = $64,000-$222,000). The average ICER per QALY for dasatinib- vs imatinib-initiating sequences is $100,000 for an imatinib-resistant population. The average ICER per QALY for dasatinib- vs nilotinib-initiating sequences is $170,000 for an imatinib-resistant population, and $160,000 for an imatinib-intolerant population.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis suggests that dasatinib is associated with increased survival and quality of life compared to high dose imatinib and to a smaller extent with nilotinib, among patients resistant or intolerant to 1st-line imatinib, primarily based on higher cytogenetic response rates observed in clinical studies of dasatinib. Head-to-head studies of sequential use of dasatinib and nilotinib are needed to validate the model findings of improved survival (LYs) with better quality-of-life (QALYs) for patients initiating dasatinib in 2nd-line. However, the model findings (in light of higher cytogenetic response rates with dasatinib) are supported by other studies showing improved quality-of-life for responders, and improved survival for patients achieving cytogenetic response.

Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Sequential Treatment of Patients with Chronic Myeloid Leukemia in the United States: A Decision Analysis

Currently several tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are approved for treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). Our goal was to identify the optimal sequential treatment strategy in terms of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness for CML patients within the US health care context. We evaluated 18 treatment strategies regarding survival, quality-adjusted survival, and costs. For model parameters, the literature data, expert surveys, registry data, and economic databases were used. Evaluated strategies included imatinib, dasatinib, nilotinib, bosutinib, ponatinib, stem-cell transplantation (SCT), and chemotherapy. We developed a Markov state-transition model, which was analyzed as a cohort simulation over a lifelong time horizon with a third-party payer perspective and discount rate of 3%. Remaining life expectancies ranged from 5.4 years (3.9 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)) for chemotherapy treatment without TKI to 14.4 years (11.1 QALYs) for nilotinib→dasatinib→chemotherapy/SCT. In the economic evaluation, imatinib→chemotherapy/SCT resulted in an incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of $171,700/QALY compared to chemotherapy without TKI. Imatinib→nilotinib→chemotherapy/SCT yielded an ICUR of $253,500/QALY compared to imatinib→chemotherapy/SCT. Nilotinib→dasatinib→chemotherapy/SCT yielded an ICUR of $445,100/QALY compared to imatinib→nilotinib→chemotherapy/SCT. All remaining strategies were excluded due to dominance of the clinically superior strategies. Based on our analysis and current treatment guidelines, imatinib→nilotinib→chemotherapy/SCT and nilotinib→dasatinib→chemotherapy/SCT can be considered cost-effective for patients with CML, depending on willingness-to-pay.

Systematic assessment of decision-analytic models for chronic myeloid leukemia

BACKGROUND

Several tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are approved for the treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). Decision-analytic modeling can help to extrapolate data from short-term clinical trials and also consider quality of life when evaluating different treatment strategies.

OBJECTIVE

Our goal was to describe and analyze the structural and methodological approaches of published decision-analytic models for various treatment strategies in CML and to derive recommendations for the development of future CML models.

DATA SOURCES

We performed a systematic literature search in electronic databases (MEDLINE/PreMEDLINE, EconLit, EMBASE, NHS EED, and Tuft's CEA Registry) to identify published studies evaluating CML treatment strategies using mathematical models. The search was updated in August 2013.

STUDY SELECTION

The models were required to compare different treatment strategies in relation to relevant clinical and patient-relevant health outcomes [e.g., life-years gained, quality-adjusted life-years] over a defined time horizon and population.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

We used standardized forms for data extraction, description of study design, methodological framework, and data sources for each model.

RESULTS

We identified 18 different decision-analytic modeling studies. Of these, 17 included economic evaluations. Modeling approaches included decision trees, Markov cohort models, state-transition models with individual (Monte Carlo) simulations, and mathematical equations. Analytic time horizons ranged from 2 years to a lifetime. Treatment strategies compared included bone marrow or stem cell transplantation, conventional chemotherapy, interferon-α, and TKIs. Only one model evaluated a second-generation TKI. Most models did not report a model validation. All models conducted deterministic sensitivity analyses and four reported a probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

LIMITATIONS

Articles that were not published in English or German were not included in this review. Our literature search was restricted to published full-text articles in certain databases. Therefore, publications that met our inclusion criteria but were published in different databases, different languages, or as abstracts only may have been missed.

CONCLUSIONS

While several well-designed models of CML treatment strategies exist, there remains a need for the assessment of the long-term efficacy and cost effectiveness of novel treatment options such as second-generation TKIs. Additionally, these models should be validated using independent data.