Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
BACKGROUND: ALs. OBJECTIVE: ALs on the formulary of a hypothetical US 1-million-member commercial health plan. METHODS: ALs were approved during BIM development, 11 additional pharmacotherapies for R/R ALs (5 for AML and 6 for ALL, not including revumenib) were included as treatment options in the model. Clinical data included adverse event (AE) rates, duration of treatment, time to subsequent treatment, and survival outcomes. Cost inputs (USD 2024) included in the model comprised drug acquisition and administration, grade 3 or greater AEs, treatment-related supportive care and monitoring, subsequent treatment, and end-of-life costs. The differential cost per member per month (PMPM) was estimated. One-way sensitivity analyses varying the costs of drug acquisition and toxicity by ±20% and scenario analyses varying uptake of revumenib and epidemiology inputs, as well as excluding costs related to supportive care and posttreatment discontinuation, were performed. RESULTS: An estimated 1.7 adult patients (AML, 1.1; ALL, 0.6) were treatment eligible annually. Estimated 3-year total plan costs without and with revumenib were $2,146,564 and $2,126,919, respectively, for savings of -$19,646. Including revumenib was estimated to yield a differential PMPM cost of -$0.0005 over 3 years. The total number of grade 3 or greater AEs was lower over 3 years (10.82 vs 10.99, respectively) in the plan with revumenib vs without. Sensitivity and scenario analyses validated the robustness of the model. CONCLUSIONS: ALs was approximately cost neutral, offering patients access to a targeted treatment with potential for improved clinical outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Abraham et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: