Objective:: To assess the cost-effectiveness and economic sustainability of treosulfan plus fludarabine compared with busulfan plus fludarabine as a conditioning treatment for malignant disease prior to allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloHSCT) in adult patients in Italy.
Method:: The two theoretical cohorts of patients aged ≥ 60 years with acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) were pooled and followed over time using a partitioned survival model with cycles of 28 days. Patients can transition between a post-HSCT recovery/remission state (Event-Free Survival state, EFS state), a relapsed/progressed disease state, and a death state. A lifetime horizon for cost-effectiveness analysis and a 5-years’ time horizon for budget impact analysis were used. The perspective of the Italian National Health Service was adopted. Utility values were obtained from published sources. Costs included: drug acquisition, HSCT procedure, management and treatment of adverse reactions, graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) and health states, end of life treatment. Discounting of 3% per year was applied for both costs and outcomes according to Italian guidelines. Sensitivity was tested through both one-way and probabilistic analyses.
Results:: Cost-effectiveness analysis showed that treosulfan is both more effective and less expensive compared with busulfan (+1.08 life-years, +0.95 quality-adjusted life-years per patient and –€ 41,388 per patient). On the side of economic sustainability, the introduction of treosulfan in the market could generate a cumulative decrement of the expense incurred by NHS of about –€ 212,063 over five years.
Conclusion:: Treosulfan could represent a cost-effective and sustainable treatment alternative from the perspective of the NHS.