Cost-Utility Analysis of Dasatinib and Nilotinib in Patients With Chronic Myeloid Leukemia Refractory to First-Line Treatment With Imatinib in Thailand

BackgroundRecently, the second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors dasatinib and nilotinib have emerged as alternative treatments in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) who are resistant to or intolerant of imatinib.ObjectiveThis article aimed to assess the cost utility and budget impact of using dasatinib or nilotinib, rather than high-dose (800-mg/d) imatinib, in patients with chronic phase (CP) CML who are resistant to standard-dose (400-mg/d) imatinib in Thailand.MethodsA Markov simulation model was developed and used to estimate the lifetime costs and outcomes of treating patients aged ≥38 years with CP-CML. The efficacy parameters were synthesized from a systematic review. Utilities using the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions tool and costs were obtained from the Thai CML population. Costs and outcomes were compared and presented as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in 2011 Thai baht (THB) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to estimate parameter uncertainty.ResultsFrom a societal perspective, treatment with dasatinib was found to yield more QALYs (2.13) at a lower cost (THB 1,631,331) per person than high-dose imatinib. Nilotinib treatment was also found to be more cost-effective than high-dose imatinib, producing an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of THB 83,328 per QALY gained. This treatment option also resulted in the highest number of QALYs gained of all of the treatment options. The costs of providing dasatinib, nilotinib, and high-dose imatinib were estimated at THB 5 billion, THB 6 billion, and THB 7 billion, respectively.ConclusionsTreatment with dasatinib or nilotinib is likely to be more cost-effective than treatment with high-dose imatinib in CP-CML patients who do not respond positively to standard-dose imatinib in the Thai context. Dasatinib was found to be more cost-effective than nilotinib.