Nilotinib versus dasatinib as second-line therapy in patients with Philadelphia chromosome-positive chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase who are resistant or intolerant to imatinib: a cost-effectiveness analysis based on real-world data.

Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of second-line nilotinib vs dasatinib among patients with Philadelphia chromosome-positive chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase (Ph_CML-CP) who are resistant or intolerant to imatinib, from a US third-party perspective. Methods: A lifetime partitioned survival model was developed to compare the costs and effectiveness of nilotinib vs dasatinib, which included four health states: CP on treatment, CP post-discontinuation, progressive disease (accelerated phase [AP] or blast crisis [BC]), and death. Time on treatment, progression-free survival, and overall survival of nilotinib and dasatinib were estimated using real-world comparative effectiveness data. Parametric survival models were used to extrapolate outcomes beyond the study period. Drug treatment costs, medical costs, and adverse event costs were obtained from the literature and publicly available databases. Utilities of health states were derived from the literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, including incremental cost per life-year (LY) gained and incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, were estimated comparing nilotinib and dasatinib. Deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed by varying patient characteristics, cost, and utility inputs. Results: Over a lifetime horizon, nilotinib-treated patients were associated with 11.7 LYs, 9.1 QALYs, and a total cost of $ 1,409,466, while dasatinib-treated patients were associated with 9.5 LYs, 7.3 QALYs, and a total cost of $ 1,422,122. In comparison with dasatinib, nilotinib was associated with better health outcomes (by 2.2 LYs and 1.9 QALYs) and lower total costs (by $ 12,655). Deterministic sensitivity analysis results showed consistent findings in most scenarios. Limitations: In the absence of long-term real-world data, the lifetime projection could not be validated. Conclusions: Compared with dasatinib, second-line nilotinib was associated with better life expectancy, better quality-of-life, and lower costs among patients with Ph_CML-CP who were resistant or intolerant to imatinib.