Objective To systematically review the pharmacoeconomic evaluation related to relapsed or refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (r/r B-ALL), and to summarize its model structure, parameter inclusion and other methodological parts for future r/r B-ALL-related interventions, and to provide references for conducting pharmacoeconomic evaluations. Methods PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CNKI and WanFang Data databases were electronically searched to collect relevant literature on the pharmacoeconomic evaluation model of r/r B-ALL from inception to August 6th, 2021. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and assessed the quality of the included studies. The data on the model structure, methods, and parameter inclusion were then summarized. Results A total of 10 studies using different modeling methods were included. Due to the lack of head-to-head trials, most of the efficacy parameters for the intervention and control groups were derived from different clinical trials and compared indirectly. All studies used quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) as output indicators, and some used life years (LYs) as output indicators and reported the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER). All studies measured the cost of treatment and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation; a few studies also conducted subgroup analysis. Conclusion The number of studies on the economic evaluation of r/r B-ALL is relatively small, and there are large differences in model types, health status, and parameter inclusion. It is suggested that researchers should guarantee the integrity of the report format and normative according to available data choice drug economics evaluation model and establish the reasonable hypothesis under the condition of the patient population heterogeneity uncertainty, perform subgroup analysis especially on the subgroup which did not receive salvage therapy. In the absence of head-to-head clinical trials, appropriate indirect comparison methods are adopted according to the data obtained to reduce methodological differences and improve the quality of relevant pharmacoeconomic research in China.
