Search

Purpose: Zanubrutinib, a potent and specific irreversible Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitor, has proven to be effective in untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), whether used alone or in combination with other therapies. Here, we compared the cost-effectiveness of zanubrutinib with bendamustine-rituximab (R-bendamustine) to determine its effectiveness as the first-line treatment for Chinese patients with untreated CLL., Methods: The evaluation utilized a partitioned survival model, constructed using TreeAge Pro 2011 software, incorporating data from SEQUOIA trial (NCT03336333). Transition probabilities were estimated from the reported survival probabilities in trials using parametric survival modeling. In this analysis, the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, and lifetime cost were calculated from the Chinese health care system perspective. Sensitivity analyses, including 1-way analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis, were carried out to explore the uncertainty of the modeling results. Additionally, several scenario analyses, including different zanubrutinib price calculation and 20-year time horizon, were evaluated., Findings: The findings revealed that zanubrutinib had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $58,258.18 per additional QALYs gained compared with bendamustine-rituximab, with zanubrutinib being cost-effective only if its price was reduced by more than 30%. Research indicated that zanubrutinib achieved at least a 3.70% probability of cost-effectiveness at the threshold of $38,223.34/QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis revealed that the results were sensitive to the utility of progressed disease., Implications: The study highlighted the importance of considering the cost-effectiveness of zanubrutinib at its current price point for patients with untreated CLL in China, emphasizing the need for further assessment and potential pricing adjustments to enhance its economic viability in clinical practice., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Though the chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) management options in India are still limited compared to the novel drug options in resource-rich settings, the availability of less costly generics and the government health insurance scheme has enabled many patients to access the newer drugs in India. The current study compared the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of existing initial management options for the progression-free survival (PFS) time horizon from the patient's perspective. A two-health-state, PFS and progressive disease, Markov model was assumed for three regimens (generics): ibrutinib monotherapy, bendamustine-rituximab (B-R), and rituximab-chlorambucil (RClb) used as the frontline treatment of CLL patients in India. All costs, utilization of services, and consequences data during the PFS period were collected from interviewing patients during follow-up visits. The transition probability (TP) and average PFS information were obtained from landmark published studies. EQ-5D-5L questionnaires were utilized to assess the quality of life (QoL). Quality-adjusted life years (QALY) were measured during the PFS period. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) were studied. Upon analysis, the entire monetary expense during the PFS time was ₹1581964 with ibrutinib, ₹171434 with B-R, and ₹91997 with RClb treatment arm. Pooled PFS and QALY gain was 10.33 and 8.28 years for ibrutinib, 4.08 and 3.53 years for the B-R regimen, and 1.33 and 1.23 years in RClb arms, respectively. Ibrutinib's ICER and ICUR were ₹214587.32 per PFS year gain and ₹282384.86 per QALY gain when assessed against the B-R regimen. Ibrutinib also performed better in ICER and ICUR against the RClb arm with ₹157014.29 per PFS year gain and ₹200413.6 per QALY gain. In conclusion, generic ibrutinib is a cost-effective initial line of management compared to other commonly used treatment regimes in resource-limited settings., Competing Interests: Declarations. Conflict of interest: The authors declare no competing interests., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Introduction: The Alliance A041202/CCTG CLC.2 trial demonstrated superior progression-free survival with ibrutinib-based therapy compared to chemoimmunotherapy with bendamustine-rituximab (BR) in previously untreated older patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. We completed a prospective trial-based economic analysis of Canadian patients to study the direct medical costs and quality-adjusted benefit associated with these therapies., Methods: Mean survival was calculated using the restricted mean survival method from randomization to the study time-horizon of 24 months. Health state utilities were collected using the EuroQOL EQ-5D instrument with Canadian tariffs applied to calculate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs were applied to resource utilization data (expressed in 2019 US dollars). We examined costs and QALYs associated ibrutinib, ibrutinib with rituximab (IR), and BR therapy., Results: A total of 55 patients were enrolled; two patients were excluded from the analysis. On-protocol costs (associated with protocol-specified resource use) were higher for patients receiving ibrutinib (mean $189,335; P < 0.0001) and IR (mean $219,908; P < 0.0001) compared to BR (mean $51,345), driven by higher acquisition costs for ibrutinib. Total mean costs (over 2-years) were $192,615 with ibrutinib, $223,761 with IR, and $55,413 with BR (P < 0.0001 for ibrutinib vs. BR and P < 0.0001 for IR vs. BR). QALYs were similar between the three treatment arms: 1.66 (0.16) for ibrutinib alone, 1.65 (0.24) for IR, and 1.66 (0.17) for BR; therefore, a formal cost-utility analysis was not conducted., Conclusions: Direct medical costs are higher for patients receiving ibrutinib-based therapies compared to chemoimmunotherapy in frontline chronic lymphocytic leukemia, with the cost of ibrutinib representing a key driver., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest Dr. Woyach has received honoraria and/or research funding from Pharmacyclics, Abbvie, and Janssen. Dr. Lam has received honoraria from Abbvie and Janssen. Dr. Owen has received honoraria from Janssen., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background/aim: Limited published real-world data describe adverse events (AEs) among patients treated for mantle-cell lymphoma (MCL). The aim of this retrospective study was to describe treatment patterns, AEs, and associated healthcare costs., Patients and Methods: Patients had two or more claims coded for MCL diagnosis, the first claim date (07/01/2012-05/31/2017) was the index date. Patients with pre-index MCL diagnosis or systemic treatment, or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation were excluded. Cohorts by regimen were followed for up to three lines of therapy., Results: Patients (n=395; median age 72 years; 31% female) were observed over a total of 576 lines of therapy, the most common being bendamustine plus rituximab; rituximab monotherapy; R-CHOP; and ibrutinib. The most frequent AEs were hypertension (40.5%), anemia (37.7%), and infection (36.1%). However, hepatotoxicity ($19,645), stroke ($18,893), and renal failure ($9,037) were associated with the highest medical costs per patient per month., Conclusion: Among patients receiving common systemic treatments for MCL, AEs occurred frequently; some imposed substantial inpatient care costs., (Copyright © 2021 International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.)

Aim:  To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of polatuzumab vedotin (pola) + bendamustine + rituximab (BR) in relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma based on the GO29365 trial from a US payer's perspective. Materials & methods:  A partitioned survival model used progression-free survival and overall survival data from the GO29365 trial. The base case analysis assumed overall survival was informed by progression-free survival; a mixture cure model estimated proportion of long-term survivors. Results: In the base case, pola + BR was cost-effective versus BR at US$35,864 per quality-adjusted life year gained. Probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses showed that the findings were robust. Conclusion: Pola + BR is cost-effective versus BR for the treatment of transplant-ineligible relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in the US.

Aims: Obinutuzumab (GA101, G) was approved in February 2016 by the US Food and Drug Administration to treat follicular lymphoma (FL) patients who relapsed after, or are refractory to (R/R), a rituximab-containing regimen (R/R-rituximab). In the GADOLIN trial, R/R-rituximab patients who received G plus bendamustine (B) followed by G-monotherapy (G + B) for up to 2 years had significantly improved progression-free survival and overall survival compared to patients receiving B-monotherapy. This study estimated the cost-effectiveness of G + B vs B-monotherapy for R/R-rituximab FL patients from a US payer perspective., Materials and Methods: Patient outcomes were simulated using a 3-state area under the curve model including progression-free survival, progressive disease, and death. This study used R/R-rituximab data from the National LymphoCare Study to extrapolate the GADOLIN trial's refractory FL progression-free and overall survival data to a R/R-rituximab FL population. Drug utilization and adverse events were based on trial data, and costs were based on Medicare reimbursements and drug wholesale acquisition costs in 2016. Utility estimates were derived from published literature. Post-progression treatment costs were based on observed post-progression therapies in GADOLIN. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess model uncertainty., Results: G + B resulted in an increase in quality-adjusted life years relative to B-monotherapy of 1.24 (95% CR = 0.61-1.87); the incremental total cost was $58,100 (95% CR = $54,500-$61,500). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $47,000 per QALY gained, and, based on probabilistic simulations, there was a 98% probability that G + B was cost-effective at the $100,000 per QALY threshold., Limitations and Conclusions: This US-based analysis suggests that treatment with G + B compared to B-monotherapy is likely cost-effective in R/R-rituximab FL patients. Modeling a R/R-rituximab population based on a synthesis of GADOLIN and the National LymphoCare Study data introduces uncertainty in the analysis. However, the findings were robust to sensitivity analyses.

As part of its single technology appraisal process, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of obinutuzumab (Roche) to submit evidence on its clinical and cost effectiveness when used in combination with bendamustine in patients with follicular lymphoma (FL) refractory to rituximab. The Evidence Review Group (ERG), the School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group at the University of Sheffield, produced a document summarising the key points from the company submission alongside a critical review. Efficacy for progression-free survival (PFS) and safety was positively demonstrated in the pivotal GADOLIN trial, which compared obinutuzumab in combination with bendamustine followed by obinutuzumab maintenance (O-Benda+O) against bendamustine monotherapy. Data on overall survival were immature. The company submitted a model-based economic analysis, including a patient access scheme. The ERG identified a number of limitations, in particular the absence of subgroup analysis and the approach used by the company to estimate overall survival (OS), which was more favourable to the intervention arm. The key uncertainty was the duration of the treatment effect on OS. This uncertainty is expected to be reduced when the final analysis of the GADOLIN trial is reported. Consequently, the NICE appraisal committee recommended O-Benda+O in the population covered by the marketing authorisation within the Cancer Drug Fund until NICE is able to review the guidance following publication of the final analysis of GADOLIN.

Aims: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of obinutuzumab in combination with bendamustine followed by obinituzumab maintenance (Obin-Benda) compared to bendamustine alone (Benda) in patients with refractory follicular lymphoma (FL) in a Norwegian setting., Methods: A three-state area-under-the-curve (AUC) model was developed. The states included were progression-free-survival (PFS), progressed disease (PD), and death. Each state had costs and utilities assigned to it. The pivotal phase III randomized controlled trial GADOLIN was used for clinical input in the model along with Norwegian cost estimates. The trial demonstrated that Obin-Benda improved overall survival (OS), with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.67 (95% CI 0.47-0.96), and reduced the likelihood of progression or death (HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.39-0.69) compared to Benda. The model used EQ-5D data collected in the GADOLIN trial, with UK tariffs assigned to the EQ-5D scores., Results: The total quality adjusted life-years (QALYs) for the patients on Obin-Benda were estimated to be 4.67, compared to 3.65 for Benda, while the total costs were estimated to be €98,849 and €51,570, respectively. Obin-Benda had an incremental gain of 1.02 QALYs compared to Benda, at an additional cost of €47,279. The estimated deterministic incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was €46,438 per QALY gained, while the probabilistic ICER was €46,887 per QALY gained (95% CI €34,772-€59,443). The results were robust to changes in various sensitivity and scenario analyses., Conclusions: The cost-effectiveness threshold in Norway is not public, but based on previous decisions it is estimated to be up to approximately €89,000 per QALY (NOK 800,000). The results of the analysis indicate that obinutuzumab in combination with bendamustine followed by obinutuzumab maintenance may be cost-effective compared to bendamustine alone in Norway.

Aims: To assess the real-world healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs associated with different treatment regimens used in the management of patients with relapsed multiple myeloma in the UK, France, and Italy., Methods: Retrospective medical chart review of characteristics, time to progression, level of response, HRU during treatment, and adverse events (AEs). Data collection started on June 1, 2015 and was completed on July 15, 2015. In the 3 months before record abstraction, eligible patients had either disease progression after receiving one of their country's most commonly prescribed regimens or had received the best supportive care and died. Costs were calculated based on HRU and country-specific diagnosis-related group and/or unit reference costs, amongst other standard resources., Results: Physicians provided data for 1,282 patients (387 in the UK, 502 in France, 393 in Italy) who met the inclusion criteria. Mean [median] total healthcare costs associated with a single line of treatment were €51,717 [35,951] in the UK, €37,009 [32,538] for France, and €34,496 [42,342] for Italy, driven largely by anti-myeloma medications costs (contributing 95.0%, 90.0%, and 94.2% of total cost, respectively). During active treatment, the highest costs were associated with lenalidomide- and pomalidomide-based regimens. Mean cost per month was lowest for patients achieving a very good partial response or better. Unscheduled events (i.e. not considered part of routine management, whether or not related to multiple myeloma, such as unscheduled hospitalization, AEs, fractures) accounted for 1-9% of total costs and were highest for bendamustine., Limitations: The use of retrospective data means that clinical practice (e.g. use of medical procedures, evaluation of treatment response) is not standardized across participating countries/centers, and some data (e.g. low-grade AEs) may be incomplete or differently adjudicated/reported. The centers involved may not be fully representative of national practice., Conclusions: Drug costs are the main contributor to total HRU costs associated with multiple myeloma. The duration of active treatment may influence the average total costs, as well as response, associated with a single line of therapy. Improved treatment outcomes, and reductions in unscheduled events and concomitant medication use may, therefore, reduce the overall HRU and related costs of care in multiple myeloma.

Background: Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is an orphan disease that primarily affects the elderly. The majority of symptomatic patients eligible for frontline treatment are unfit for fludarabine based chemoimmunotherapy. Historical treatment includes chlorambucil (Chl), bendamustine/rituximab (BR), and chlorambucil/rituximab/ChlR combination. Clinical guidelines now recommend the use of novel agents, such as ibrutinib (Ibr), in both frontline and relapse settings and other novel agents, such as idelalisib (with rituximab), in relapse settings. Despite compelling clinical results for novel agents, follow-up in clinical trials is relatively short and, thus, the comparative long-term benefits are still unknown., Materials and Methods: The authors developed a simulation model to generate treatment specific lifetime estimates of Overall Survival (OS) and Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) for treatment with BR, Chl, ChlR, and Ibr. Two potential clinical scenarios were modelled: with and without novel agents for treating CLL. The model was based on health states relating to first- and second-line progression-free survival (PFS), post-progression survival, and death., Results: Where novel agents were assumed unavailable, mean OS ranged from 5.4-8.5 years and QALYs from 3.5-6.1. Where novel agents were available, the mean OS increased to 10.0 years, with a corresponding increase in QALYs to 7.6. Frontline Ibr use followed by Physician's Choice, including novel agents at relapse, resulted in projected increase in OS of between 18% (1.5 years) and 85% (4.6 years), corresponding to a 25-117% increase in QALYs, compared with currently available traditional therapies., Limitations: The limitations of this analysis include immature OS data and the assumption of equivalent efficacy across all novel agents in terms of their impact on PFS and OS., Conclusions: The use of novel agents is predicted to yield substantive gains in predicted lifetime OS and QALY improvements compared to traditional therapies in CLL patients who are ineligible for fludarabine-based chemoimmunotherapy.

Background: Follicular lymphoma (FL) is the second most common type of lymphoid cancer in Western Europe., Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost utility of rituximab-bendamustine treatment compared with R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone) treatment as a first-line therapy for patients with advanced FL in Spain., Methods: A Markov model was developed to estimate the cost effectiveness of rituximab-bendamustine compared with R-CHOP as first-line treatment for patients with advanced FL in the Spanish National Health System (NHS). Transitions between health states (progression-free, including induction and maintenance; first relapse; second relapse; and death) were allowed for the patient cohort in 4-week-long cycles. Clinical data for the extrapolation of progression-free survival curves were obtained from randomized trials. Mortality rates and utilities were obtained from the literature. Outcomes were measured as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The total costs (€, 2013) included drug costs (ex-factory prices with mandatory deductions), disease management costs and adverse event-associated costs. Costs and outcomes were discounted at a 3 % annual rate. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed using 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations to assess the model robustness., Results: Treatment and administration costs during the induction phase were higher for rituximab-bendamustine (€17,671) than for R-CHOP (€11,850). At the end of the 25-year period, the rituximab-bendamustine first-line strategy had a total cost of €68,357 compared with €69,528 for R-CHOP. Health benefits were higher for rituximab-bendamustine treatment (10.31 QALYs) than for R-CHOP treatment (9.82 QALYs). In the probabilistic analysis, rituximab-bendamustine was the dominant strategy over treatment with R-CHOP in 53.4 % of the simulations., Conclusion: First-line therapy with rituximab-bendamustine in FL patients was the dominant strategy over treatment with R-CHOP; it showed cost savings and higher health benefits for the Spanish NHS.