Cost-effectiveness of targeted treatment vs chemoimmunotherapy in treatment-naive unfit CLL without TP53 aberrations

Several targeted treatments, such as venetoclax + obinutuzumab (VenO) and ibrutinib, have been developed to treat patients with treatment-naive chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and have been shown to improve progression-free survival compared with chlorambucil + obinutuzumab (ClbO). However, novel targeted agents are associated with a significant cost investment. The objective of this study was to investigate the cost-effectiveness of VenO compared with ClbO and ibrutinib in treatment-naive CLL without del17p/TP53 mutation in Denmark. We used a decision-analytic modeling approach to simulate hypothetical cohorts of patients with CLL from the initiation of first-line treatment to death, including the full treatment pathway and second-line therapy. VenO, ClbO, or ibrutinib was included as first-line therapy followed by either Ven + rituximab or ibrutinib. Model outcomes were expected quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), life years (LYs), and cost per patient, which were used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) with a willingness to pay from euro23 600 to euro35 600 per QALY. Compared with ClbO, VenO was associated with a QALY gain of 1.30 (1.42 LYs) over a lifetime. The incremental cost was euro12 360, resulting in an ICER of euro9491 per QALY gained, indicating that VenO is cost-effective. Compared with VenO, ibrutinib was associated with a QALY gain of 0.82 (1.74 LYs) but at a substantially increased incremental cost of euro247 488 over a lifetime horizon. The ICER was euro302 156 per QALY, indicating that ibrutinib in first-line treatment would not be considered cost-effective in Danish health care, compared with VenO. Future analyses in fit patients with CLL are needed to determine the cost-effectiveness of VenO.

Automated summary

This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of venetoclax + obinutuzumab (VenO), chlorambucil + obinutuzumab (ClbO), and ibrutinib in the treatment of treatment-naive CLL patients in Denmark. The results showed that VenO was cost-effective, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of euro9491 per QALY gained. On the other hand, compared with VenO, ibrutinib had a higher ICER of euro302 156 per QALY and was not considered cost-effective in Danish healthcare.