Published in:
Open Access 01-12-2023 | Ruxolitinib | Research
A cost-effectiveness analysis of ruxolitinib versus best alternative therapy for patients with steroid-refractory chronic graft-versus-host disease aged > 12 years in Singapore
Published in: Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation | Issue 1/2023
Login to get accessAbstract
Background
Approximately 30–70% of patients who have undergone allogeneic (allo) hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) eventually experience chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD). Patients who develop steroid-refractory (SR)-cGVHD are the most severely impacted due to significant disease and financial burden. There remains an unmet need for safe, efficacious, and accessible treatments for these patients. The objective of this study was to determine the cost effectiveness of ruxolitinib for treatment of SR-cGvHD from the Singapore healthcare system perspective.
Methods
Based on data from the REACH3 randomized open-label trial, a semi-Markov model was developed to evaluate cost-effectiveness of ruxolitinib compared with investigators' choice of best alternative therapy (BAT) for treatment of patients > 12 years of age with SR-cGVHD in Singapore over a 40-year time horizon. The model only considered direct medical-care costs related to the treatment of SR-cGVHD and reported them in Singapore Dollars (SGD). Half-cycle correction was applied to all costs and outcomes, which were discounted at 3%. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA), one-way sensitivity analysis (OWSA), and scenario analysis were conducted to explore the drivers of uncertainty in the model.
Results
In the deterministic base case, more life years (LY; 10.28 vs. 9.42) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs; 7.31 vs. 6.51) were gained with ruxolitinib than BAT at higher costs (SGD 303,214 vs. SGD 302,673) leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of SGD 677/QALY. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of SGD 75,000/QALY gained, PSA found that ruxolitinib had a 78.52% probability of being cost-effective. Findings were sensitive to variations in non-responder utilities in the BAT arm and duration of BAT treatment in the OWSA, or comparison to either methotrexate (MTX) or mycophenolic acid as a single comparator in the scenario analysis. ICERs remained lower than SGD 75,000/QALY in all other tested variations and scenarios.
Conclusion
Ruxolitinib is likely to be cost-effective from Singapore healthcare system’s perspective for patients with SR-cGVHD, which is promising in the management of patients with unmet clinical needs.