ArticleHealth economics review2026
Cost-effectiveness of zanubrutinib versus ibrutinib in the first-line treatment for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)/small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) in China.
Article in Health economics review, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of zanubrutinib compared to ibrutinib in the first-line treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) / small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.
methodsA three-state partitioned survival model was constructed to simulate the lifetime outcomes and costs for patients with CLL/SLL receiving first-line treatment, with a one-month model cycle length. The clinical parameters were derived from the SEQUOIA trial for zanubrutinib and the ALLIANCE and RESONATE-2 trials for ibrutinib. Costs and medical resource utilizations were derived from the national and provincial public drug prices, as well as clinical expert surveys of eight tertiary hospitals in China. Utilities were obtained from previously published literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated based on the total costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for each treatment, with a cost-effectiveness threshold set at three times the Chinese per capita gross domestic product (GDP). Sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the base case analysis results.
resultsOver a lifetime horizon, the base case analysis results revealed that zanubrutinib yielded 5.14 QALYs with a total cost of US dollar (USD) 130,382, whereas ibrutinib achieved 4.69 QALYs with a total cost of USD 153,103. By saving USD 22,722 and gaining an additional 0.45 QALYs compared to ibrutinib, zanubrutinib demonstrated a dominant ICER. Sensitivity analysis results suggested that the hazard ratio (HR) of overall survival (OS) data of ibrutinib versus bendamustine plus rituximab (BR) regimen was the most sensitive parameter, and zanubrutinib had a 90.80% probability of being more cost-effective than ibrutinib at the current threshold. The scenario analysis results further supported the robustness of these findings.
conclusionFor the first-line treatment of CLL/SLL patients in China, zanubrutinib is likely to be more cost-effective compared to ibrutinib.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.