Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Integral Treatment of Chronic Myeloid Leukemia in Chronic Phase at the Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social (IMSS) Mexico.

The economic analysis has become a priority for health institutions as a result of the increase in medical care costs. Therefore, an analysis model was developed integrating clinical and economic outcomes for the Medical care of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) in chronic pahse.

Objective: To perform a cost-effectiveness assessment of the therapeutic alternatives for CML at UMAE No.25 IMSS.

Methodology: Economic evaluation of the use of imatinib mesylate (IM) vs. interferon + citarabine (INF/AraC), using as an effectiveness indicator, the number needed for treatment (NNT), to achieve a complete cytogenetic response (CCR) at 24 and 30 months was used. The integral care was obtained from the revision of clinical records in the UMAE 25, and from disease related-costs published by the IMSS.

Results: The NNT reveals the amount of patients that need to be treated with one or the other of the therapies to obtain the desired result (CCR), which means that for every 1.15 patients IC 95% (1.06–1.25) treated with IM for 24 months, one will reach the CCR, with a cost of $867,729 mexican pesos (mx), in comparison to the care cost for 7.14 patients IC 95 % (5.75–8.88) patients that are required to be treated with IFN/AraC for 24 months to obtain the same result, with a cost of mx $4,454,565. This difference is higher when results are assessed at 30 months: A cost of NNT care of 1.27 patients IC 95% (1.07–1.50) of mx $1,178,848 for IM vs. mx $10,182,116 for NNT care of the 13.5 patients, CI 95% (9.40–19.43) required to achieve a CCR with IFN/AraC.

Discussion: Comparing these results with the cost of the main treatment used during the same time, the expense effectiveness is evident. In other words, for each peso spent on IM at 24 months, mx $0.63 are effective, whilst for each peso spent on IFN/AraC, only mx $0.02 are beneficial for the patient. When this same reasoning is applied to the success cost at 30 months, we see that for each peso spent on IM, $0.58 are effective vs mx $0.01 per peso effectiveness spent on IFN/AraC.

Conclusions: The superiority of IM is evident compared to INF/AraC in regards to the effectiveness of achieving CCR at 24 and 30 months. This positive difference in favor of imatinib mesylate is reflected on the cost that Health Institutions have to spend, in order to obtain a successful CCR, due to the decreased number of patients necessary to treat with IM, in order to achieve this success.