Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of inotuzumab ozogamicin (InO) versus standard of care chemotherapy (SoC) for adults with relapsed or refractory B cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (R/R ALL) in Sweden and Norway, and compare this to evaluations made by the health technology assessment (HTA) authorities Tandvårds- och läkemedelsförmånsverket (TLV) and the Norwegian Medicines Agency (NoMA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A partitioned survival model was developed to determine incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for InO versus SoC. Parametric survival models were fit to overall survival and progression-free survival Kaplan-Meier data from the INO-VATE ALL phase III trial. Two base cases were run using (1) Swedish and (2) Norwegian inputs (costs and discount rates). Core clinical inputs and utilities did not differ between countries. Analyses were then conducted to reflect the preferred assumptions of TLV and NoMA. Univariate and multivariate sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: The base case deterministic ICERs for InO versus SoC were €16,219/quality-adjusted life years (QALY) in Sweden (probabilistic €19,415) and €44,405/QALY in Norway (probabilistic €47,305). The ICERs using our model but applying the preferred assumptions of TLV or NoMA were €74,061/QALY (probabilistic €77,484) and €59,391/QALY (probabilistic €63,632), respectively. Differences between our base cases and the ICERs with TLV and NoMA settings were mainly explained by the exclusion of productivity costs and use of pooled post-haematopoietic stem-cell transplant (post-HSCT) survival in Sweden and use of higher HSCT costs in Norway. All ICERs remained below the approximated willingness-to-pay thresholds. The probability of InO being cost-effective ranged from 77 to 99% versus SoC. CONCLUSIONS: InO can likely be considered cost-effective versus SoC under our and the HTA-preferred settings.