TABLE 2.
Cost-Effectiveness of VenG Compared With Other Treatments
| Treatment | Total costs ($) | Life-years gained | QALYs gained | Incremental costs ($) | Incremental life-years gained | Incremental QALYs gained | ICER ($/QALY) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VenG | $291,012 | 13.01 | 6.521 | – | – | – | – |
| GClb | $491,040 | 13.01 | 6.188 | $200,028 | 0 | −0.333 | VenG is dominant |
| BR | $595,771 | 12.31 | 5.815 | $304,759 | −0.70 | −0.706 | VenG is dominant |
| Ibr | $1,045,472 | 12.31 | 6.004 | $754,460 | −0.70 | −0.517 | VenG is dominant |
| Ibr + G | $1,779,412 | 13.02 | 6.543 | $1,488,400 | 0.01 | 0.022 | $67,856,575 |
| Ibr + R | $1,040,860 | 12.22 | 5.946 | $749,848 | −0.79 | −0.576 | VenG is dominant |
| Acala | $1,870,749 | 13.55 | 7.194 | $1,579,737 | 0.54 | 0.672 | $2,349,304 |
| Acala + G | $1,947,166 | 13.56 | 7.482 | $1,656,154 | 0.55 | 0.961 | $1,724,052 |
Acala = acalabrutinib; B = bendamustine; Clb = chlorambucil; G = obinutuzumab; Ibr = ibrutinib; ICER = incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; QALY = quality-adjusted life-year; R = rituximab; Ven = venetoclax.