scholarly journals The cost-effectiveness of immediate treatment or watch and wait with deferred chemotherapy for advanced asymptomatic follicular lymphoma

2017 ◽  
Vol 180 (1) ◽  
pp. 52-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Prettyjohns ◽  
Peter Hoskin ◽  
Christopher McNamara ◽  
David Linch ◽  
Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 3833-3833
Author(s):  
Konstantinos Papadakis ◽  
George A Follows ◽  
John Boyer ◽  
Zahid Bashir ◽  
Philip Ball ◽  
...  

Abstract Abstract 3833 Introduction: The PRIMA Phase III study demonstrates that rituximab (R) maintenance therapy after induction immunochemotherapy in previously untreated follicular lymphoma (FL) significantly improves progression-free survival (PFS) with little additional toxicity (Salles et al., 2009). Utilising clinical evidence from PRIMA, this economic analysis evaluated whether R-maintenance therapy in FL patients after response to R-chemotherapy induction is a cost-effective option compared to observational (Obs) practices in the UK National Healthcare System. METHODS: A transition state (Markov) model was developed with FL patients having a complete/partial response to 1st line R-chemotherapy induction being assigned across 4 health states reflecting their disease status; progression-free in 1st line maintenance (PF1), progression-free in 2nd line, progressive disease (PD) or Death. The model was developed over a 25 year horizon to capture the lifetime of an average patient. This required extrapolation of PFS beyond the PRIMA trial follow-up period (median 38.37 months; PFS hazard ratio 0.55; 95% CI [0.44-0.68]; Clinical Study report addendum) using the best parametric fit (Gompertz). The monthly probability of dying in PF1 was based on the maximum of either the observed PFS deaths in PRIMA or background mortality. The disposition of 1st line R-maintenance patients after progression was based on ESMO guidelines (Dreyling et al., 2010) and PRIMA. Due to extensive censoring of overall survival in PRIMA (95% and 97% in the respective R and Obs arms), the probabilities of progressing or dying in second-line or third line were obtained from the EORTC 20981 trial (van Oers et al., 2010). Predicted time in each health state was weighted using FL utility scores (Pettengell et al. 2008) to account for quality of life and estimate the Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs). Costs associated with the average dose of R-maintenance, post-progression treatments and managing grade 3/4 adverse events observed in PRIMA were incorporated into the relevant health state. Drug administration, patient monitoring and pharmacy costs were informed by expert opinion and the NHS schedule of reference costs. RESULTS: The average overall survival in the 1st line R-maintenance cohort was projected to be 1.27 years longer on average than in the Obs cohort (10.31 vs 9.05); and associated with an additional 1.17 QALYs. This is largely due to patients treated with 1st line R-maintenance spending more time in progression-free in first line (1.17 years). Total costs were £14,129 higher in the 1st line R-maintenance than the Obs arm and were driven by the cost of the study drug and its administration. However, this was partially compensated by the lower costs of rituximab therapy in 2nd line (cost saving £198) and the lower costs of supportive care incurred at disease progression (cost saving £906). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for 1st line R maintenance was £14,712 Life Year Gained and £15,983 per QALY gained, well below an assumed willingness to pay threshold of £30,000. Although there is uncertainty associated with the progression of FL and relapse treatment costs, the ICER did not exceed £21,155 per QALY despite a wide variation in each parameter value used in both the probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The cost-effectiveness of R-maintenance in FL patients after response to R-chemotherapy is well within the acceptable willingness to pay ceiling and remains valid under most plausible sensitivity scenarios. This provides adequate reassurance that the superior clinical benefits of 1st line R-maintenance are sufficient to justify the additional costs over observational practice. Disclosures: Papadakis: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Employment. Boyer:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Employment. Bashir:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Employment. Ball:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Employment. Aultman:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Employment. Carr:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Employment.


Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (21) ◽  
pp. 2923-2923
Author(s):  
Qiushi Chen ◽  
Turgay Ayer ◽  
Adam C Rose ◽  
Loretta J. Nastoupil ◽  
Christopher R. Flowers

Abstract Background Follicular lymphoma (FL), the most common indolent non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, has been regarded incurable and no consensus in management strategy has existed so far. In current clinical practice, the most commonly used frontline therapy is the immunochemotherapy (R-chemotherapy). Several phase III randomized trials - ECOG1496(Hochster, JCO2009), PRIMA(Salles, Lancet2011), and FIT(Morschhauser, JCO2008) - have shown that rituximab maintenance (MR) therapy and radioimmunotherapy (RIT) consolidation in addition to the frontline R-chemotherapy can improve progression-free survival (PFS) and help achieve a higher response quality. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of maintenance or consolidation therapy versus observation after frontline treatment from the US payer's perspective. Methods We developed separate Markov models over patients' lifetime for PRIMA, ECOG, and FIT trial to compare the cost and effectiveness of observation with MR/RIT after completion of frontline treatment. Published progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) curves were extracted and fitted with Log-logistic regression survival model. Progression risks and cause-specific mortality after first-line treatment were extrapolated from the corresponding fitted PFS and OS model for each arm. Risk estimates after second-line treatment were identical for different models, estimated from the published survivals of observation arm in EORTC20981 trial. Costs for administration, monitoring, and management of adverse events were based on Medicare reimbursement rates for physician services, and drug costs were the wholesale acquisition cost, all valued in 2013 US dollars. In the microsimulation, initial age at diagnosis was sampled from the age distribution according to Surveillance Epidemiology and End Result (SEER) database. All costs and effectiveness were discounted at 3% per year. Primary outcomes were incremental cost per life-year gained (LY) and cost per quality adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Model robustness in parameter uncertainties were addressed by one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Results Compared with observation, MR therapy provided 0.998 QALYs (0.901 LYs) at a cost of $43234 in PRIMA study, 1.070 QALYs (0.866 LYs) at a cost of $50146 in ECOG study, while RIT consolidation provided 0.795 QALYs (0.653 LYs) at a cost of $46085 in FIT trial. The incremental cost per QALY gained for RIT in FIT, and MR in PRIMA and ECOG were $57975, $43301, and $46844, respectively. From the table summarizing effectiveness and cost results, RIT and MR had comparable incremental QALYs before first progression, while RIT had higher incremental costs of adverse events due to relatively high incidence of adverse events in the RIT arm. Conclusions We used the same modeling framework and consistent parameter estimates to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of MR and RIT compared to observation after frontline treatment for FL patients. All strategies showed favorable cost-effectiveness profile with ICER below $100,000/QALY willingness-to-pay. Differences in induction therapies in three trials should also be noted when the ICERs of three models are compared. Disclosures: Flowers: Abbott, Celgene, Millennium/Takeda, Sanofi, Spectrum, Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene, Genentech Bio-oncology : Consultancy.


2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6583-6583
Author(s):  
J. Hornberger ◽  
C. Reyes ◽  
E. Verhulst ◽  
D. Lubeck ◽  
N. Valente

6583 Background: The addition of rituximab (RTX) to CVP (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone) in the treatment of advanced follicular lymphoma increases median time to progression by 17 months (15 month v 32 months; p < 0.0001) (Marcus et al, Blood 2005). A societal cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to estimate projected lifetime clinical and economic implications of this treatment. Methods: The cost-effectiveness (CE) of RTX + CVP versus CVP was estimated for a 50 yr old patient. Kaplan-Meier estimates of progression-free and overall survival, up to 4 years, were obtained from the M39021 trial. After 4 years, transition rates from initiation of treatment to progression or death were assumed to be the same in both arms. The clinical and economic implications of relapse and its treatment were included in the model. Incremental costs associated with addition of RTX were estimated using Medicare reimbursement rates and published retail price data. Costs included drug and administration costs, adverse events, treatment of relapses, and end-of-life costs. Utility estimates were derived from the literature and a 3% discount rate was employed. Results: Projected mean overall survival is 1.5 yrs longer for patients assigned to RTX+ CVP versus only CVP (13.7 v 12.2 yrs). The addition of RTX to CVP is estimated to cost an additional $26,439 on average, with an expected gain of 0.85 year of quality-adjusted survival. Over a lifetime, the cost per QALY gained is $31,329. Sensitivity analyses revealed that the variables that most influenced cost-effectiveness were the time horizon (range: $18,800- $31,240) and the unit drug cost of RTX (range: $24,000-$38,000). Conclusion: The model estimates a cost-to-QALY gained ratio that is below that of many treatments used for oncology patients. The use of RTX + CVP for first-line treatment of advanced follicular lymphoma is projected to be cost-effective compared to CVP alone under a range of sensitivity analyses. No significant financial relationships to disclose.


2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. ii176-ii176
Author(s):  
Nima Hamidi ◽  
Ajay Fernandez ◽  
Kyle Tuohy ◽  
Alireza Mansouri

Abstract BACKGROUND Diffuse low-grade gliomas (DLGGs, WHO Grade II gliomas) comprise 13-16% of all primary brain tumors. Although there has been a paradigmatic shift toward upfront maximal safe resection (MSR) for these heterogeneous tumors, it is important to consider the health economic perspective of this approach, compared with the traditional watch-and-wait approach, as well. OBJECTIVE To conduct a systematic review of the health economic literature on the range of DLGG management options. METHODS Following the PRISMA guidelines, Medline, EMBASE, The Central Registration Depository (CRD), EconPapers, and EconLit were searched for ‘cost-effectiveness’, ‘health economics’ and ‘Low-grade glioma’. Grade I tumors were excluded. Pre-specified variables were extracted. All currencies were converted to USD. RESULTS Among 258 abstracts, 28 were selected for full-text screening, and 3 were selected for this review. A European study evaluated the role of intraoperative electrical stimulation (IES). Although IES was associated with higher direct costs upfront ($38,662.70 vs $32,116.10), this was offset by less long-term indirect costs ($12,222.30 vs $31,927.10; p=0.023), greater QALY (4.8 vs 2.9; p=0.001), and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $1,842.50. Another study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of adjuvant PCV+RT vs RT alone, finding greater QALY for the former (9.94 vs 5.17) and an ICER of $10,186 per QALY gained. A third study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of adding 18F-fluoroethyl-L-tyrosine (FET) PET to MRI, compared to preoperative MRI alone. This resulted in an ICER of $7,193.58 for the baseline scenario (lowest reimbursement) and $10,236.12 for the morbidity-adjusted reimbursement rate scenario (highest reimbursement). There were no studies evaluating the health economics of maximal upfront surgical resection to the watch-and-wait approach. CONCLUSION We found a limited number of studies reporting on the health economics of DLGGs. Given the paradigmatic transition toward more aggressive upfront surgical resection, DLGG-specific health economic analyses are underway.


Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 3605-3605 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory F. Guzauskas ◽  
Anthony Masaquel ◽  
Carolina Reyes ◽  
Kenneth Wilhelm ◽  
Tania Krivasi ◽  
...  

Abstract Background. Obinutuzumab (G) was recently approved for the treatment of follicular lymphoma (FL) in patients who relapsed after or are refractory to a rituximab (R)-containing regimen. In the phase III open label GADOLIN study of patients with rituximab-refractory iNHL, patients received either bendamustine (B, 120 mg/m2, d1+2, c1-6) alone, or obinutuzumab (G 1000 mg (d1, 8, 15 c1, d1 c2-6) for up to six 28d cycles) plus B (90 mg/m2, d1+2, c1-6) followed by G monotherapy (100 mg every 2 mo for up to 2 years). The net clinical benefit and economic value of G+B vs. B in R-refractory patients and the larger relapse patient population have not been formally evaluated. The objective of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of G plus B followed by G monotherapy vs. B monotherapy based on results of the phase III GADOLIN trial in rituximab-refractory FL patients as well as model results for a refractory/relapse population. Methods. We developed a Markov model that utilized the GADOLIN trial's progression-free (PFS), and pooled G+B and B post-progression survival (PPS) through 4.5 years to model long-term patient PFS, progression, and death. We fit parametric curves to trial PFS and PPS data; PPS was used in lieu of immature overall survival (OS) data to model transitions to death from the progressed state. We used a U.S. registry of FL patients to inform the PFS and OS curves beyond the trial follow-up time to reflect a refractory/relapse patient population. The National LymphoCare Study is a disease-specific, prospective registry that enrolled more than 2,700 patients with newly diagnosed FL from 2004 to 2007 from more than 200 practice sites in the U.S. 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 the literature. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty in the results. Results. Treatment with G+B followed by G monotherapy led to an increase in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) relative to B-mono (1.23, 95% CR: -0.01, 2.38). The total cost of G+B was $114,815 and B-mono was $62,034, resulting in an incremental cost of $52,781. The average total cost was greater for G+B due primarily to increased drug and administration costs ($106,053 for G+B vs. $50,104 for B-mono), however this was offset by cost-savings for disease progression of -$4268 ($5,558 for G+B vs. $9,826 for B-mono). Adverse event costs were higher for G+B ($3,204) vs. B-mono ($2,103). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $43,000 per QALY gained. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, there was a 89% probability that G+B followed by G monotherapy was cost-effective versus B-mono at the $100,000 per QALY threshold. Conclusions. Our US-based analysis suggests that treatment with G+B followed by G monotherapy compared to B-mono is cost-effective in patients with FL who relapsed/refractory to a rituximab containing regimen. These findings are driven by the improvement in PFS with G+B treatment that lead to a projected increase in survival and decreased cost of treating disease progression. There was a high probability G+B was cost effective even when all parameters in the model were varied. In conclusion, G+B vs. B monotherapy in follicular lymphoma patients who relapse after or are refractory to a R-containing regimen is very likely cost effective in the US. Disclosures Guzauskas: Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy. Masaquel:Roche: Equity Ownership; Genentech: Employment. Reyes:Genentech: Employment; Roche: Equity Ownership. Wilhelm:Genentech: Employment; Roche: Equity Ownership. Krivasi:F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd.: Employment. Veenstra:Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy.


2020 ◽  
Vol 23 ◽  
pp. S46
Author(s):  
A. Shelbaya ◽  
S. Kowal ◽  
E. Wehler ◽  
C. Ferrufino ◽  
A. Al Taie ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document