Cost-utility analysis of azacitidine versus decitabine in the treatment of myelodysplastic syndrome

Published on Dec. 06, 2023Total Views: 1359 times Total Downloads: 519 times Download Mobile

Author: La-Ji DANZENG ^1, ² Yong-Gong YANG ³ Si-Liang WANG ¹  Meng-Ying LIU ¹

Affiliation: 1.Department of Pharmacy, Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, Nanjing 210008, China 2. Department of Pharmacy, Tibet Autonomous Region People's Hospital, Lhasa 850000, China 3. Department of Hematology, Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, Nanjing 210008, China

Keywords: Azacitidine Decitabine Myelodysplastic syndrome Markov model Cost-utility analysis Pharmacoeconomics

DOI: 10.19960/j.issn.1005-0698.202312007

Reference: La-Ji DANZENG, Yong-Gong YANG, Si-Liang WANG, Meng-Ying LIU.Cost-utility analysis of azacitidine versus decitabine in the treatment of myelodysplastic syndrome[J].Yaowu Liuxingbingxue Zazhi,2023, 32(12):1371-1379.DOI: 10.19960/j.issn.1005-0698.202312007.[Article in Chinese]  Copied

Abstract
Full-text
References

Abstract

Objective To evaluate the economics of azacitidine versus decitabine in the treatment of myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) from the perspective of health system in China, and provide references for clinical drug selection.

Methods A Markov model was constructed based on the data of a multi-center retrospective cohort study (NCT01409070), with a model simulation time limit of 10 years and the cycle period of 28 days. The quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) was used as health output index and incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was calculated to evaluate the economics of azacitidine versus decitabine in the treatment of MDS. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were adopted to examine the robustness of the model simulation results.

Results The results of basic analysis showed that compared with decitabine group, the total cost of azacitidine group reduced by 281 185.46 yuan and the utility increased by 0.17 QALYs. Azacitidine therapeutic regimen was the absolute dominance plan. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that progression-free survival state utility value, discount rate and decitabine cost had greater influence on the results. The results of probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested that azacinidine therapy was always economical within the willingness to pay threshold range of 3 times Chinese per capita gross domestic product in 2021.

Conclusion From the perspective of health system in China, azacitidine has more cost-utility advantages than decitabine in the treatment of MDS.

Full-text

Please download the PDF version to read the full text: download

References

1.Stojkov K, Silzle T, Stussi G, et al. Guideline-based indicators for adult patients with myelodysplastic syndromes[J]. Blood Adv, 2020, 4(16): 4029-4044. DOI: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2020002314.

2.Ma X. Epidemiology of myelodysplastic syndromes[J]. Am J Med, 2012, 125(7 Suppl): S2-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2012.04.014.

3.Platzbecker U. Treatment of MDS[J]. Blood, 2019, 133(10): 1096-1107. DOI: 10.1182/blood-2018-10-844696.

4.梅琛, 佟红艳. 去甲基化药物治疗骨髓增生异常综合征的临床现状与前景[J]. 国际输血及血液学杂志, 2021, 44(4): 284-293. [Mei C, Tong HY. Clinical application status and prospect of hypomethylating agents in treatment of myelodysplastic syndromes[J]. International Journal of Blood Transfusion and Hematology, 2021, 44(4): 284-293.] DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn511693-20200327-0007.

5.Lee YG, Kim I, Yoon SS, et al. Comparative analysis between azacitidine and decitabine for the treatment of myelodysplastic syndromes[J]. Br J Haematol, 2013, 161(3): 339-347. DOI: 10.1111/bjh.12256.

6.Xie M, Jiang Q, Xie Y. Comparison between decitabine and azacitidine for the treatment of myelodysplastic syndrome: a meta-analysis with 1,392 participants[J]. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk, 2015, 15(1): 22-28. DOI: 10.1016/j.clml.2014.04.010.

7.中华医学会血液学分会. 骨髓增生异常综合征中国诊断与治疗指南(2019年版)[J]. 中华血液学杂志, 2019, 40(2): 9. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0253-2727.2019. 02.001.

8.Greenberg PL, Stone RM, Al-Kali A, et al. NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Myelodysplastic Syndromes, version 3.2022[J]. J Natl Compr Canc Netw, 2022, 20(2): 106-117. DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2022.0009.

9.国家统计局人口和就业统计司. 中国人口和就业统计年鉴2021[M]. 北京: 中国统计出版社, 2021: 6-475.

10.周挺, 马爱霞, 付露阳. 药物经济学评价Markov模型中转移概率计算的探讨[J]. 中国卫生经济, 2017, 36(12): 40-42. [Zhou T, Ma AX, Fu LY. Discusion on the calculation of Markov model transition probability in pharmacoeconomics evaluation[J]. Chinese Health Economics, 2017, 36(12): 40-42.] DOI: 10.7664/CHE 20171210.

11.Pan F, Peng S, Fleurence R, et al. Economic analysis of decitabine versus best supportive care in the treatment of intermediate- and high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes from a US payer perspective[J]. Clin Ther, 2010, 32(14): 2444-2456. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2010.12.003.

12.刘国恩, 主编. 中国药物经济学评价指南2020[M]. 北京: 中国市场出版社, 2020: 27-46.

13.Duong VH, Komrokji RS, List AF. Update on the pharmacotherapy for myelodysplastic syndromes[J]. Expert Opin Pharmacother, 2014, 15(13): 1811-1825. DOI: 10.1517/14656566.2014.937705.

14.Abou Zahr A, Saad Aldin E, Barbarotta L, et al. The clinical use of DNA methyltransferase inhibitors in myelodysplastic syndromes[J]. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther, 2015, 15(9): 1019-1036. DOI: 10.1586/14737140.2015.1061936.

15.佟红艳. 骨髓增生异常综合征去甲基化治疗: 地西他滨还是阿扎胞苷[J]. 临床血液学杂志, 2019, 32(6): 7. [Tong HY. Demethylation therapy for myelodysplastic syndrome: decitabine or azacitidine[J]. Journal of Clinical Hematology, 2019, 32(6): 7.] DOI: 10.13201/j.issn.1004-2806.2019.11.005.

16.Da Costa EM, Mcinnes G, Beaudry A, et al. DNA methylation-targeted drugs[J]. Cancer J, 2017, 23(5): 270-276. DOI: 10.1097/PPO.0000000000000278.

17.Levy AR, Zou D, Risebrough N, et al. Cost-effectiveness in Canada of azacitidine for the treatment of higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes[J]. Curr Oncol, 2014, 21(1): e29-40. DOI: 10.3747/co.21.1311.

18.Gidwani R, Khan ZM, Fenaux P, et al. A cost-effectiveness analysis of using azacitidine vs. decitabine in treating patients with myelodysplastic syndromes[J]. J Med Econ, 2012, 15(1): 145-154. DOI: 10.3111/13696998.2011.631067.