Cost-effectiveness analysis of ibrutinib in patients with Waldenström macroglobulinemia in Italy

Abstract

Background and Objective: Ibrutinib has recently been approved in Europe for Waldenström Macroglobulinemia (WM) in symptomatic patients who have received at least one prior therapy, or in first-line treatment for patients unsuitable for chemo-immunotherapy. The aim of the study is to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of ibrutinib in relapse/refractory WM, compared with the Italian current therapeutic pathways (CTP). Methods: A Markov model was adapted for Italy considering the National Health System perspective. Input data from literature as well as global trials were used. The percentage use of therapies, and healthcare resources consumption were estimated according to expert panel advice. Drugs ex-factory prices and national tariffs were used for estimating costs. The model had a 15-year time horizon, with a 3.0% discount rate for both clinical and economic data. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the results strength. Results: Ibrutinib resulted in increased Life Years Gained (LYGs) and increased costs compared to CTP, with an ICER of €52,698/LYG. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the results of the BaseCase. Specifically, in the probabilistic analysis, at a willingness to pay threshold of €60,000/LYG ibrutinib was cost-effective in 84% of simulations. Conclusions: Ibrutinib has demonstrated a positive cost-effectiveness profile in Italy.

What is the most appropriate regimen for untreated Waldenström macroglobulinemia? - An updated analysis of rituximab and half-dose CHOP therapy and cost effectiveness

“…However, as the cost of Ibr treatment is very high, Olszewski et al [14] examined the cost-effectiveness of Ibr use compared with chemo-immunotherapy. Italian medical and economical experts analyzed the cost-effectiveness of single-agent Ibr compared with the Italian current therapeutic pathways (CTP) for relapse/refractory WM by using an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [15]. They concluded that Ibr increased the Life Years Gained and costs were comparable with CTP.…”