Cost-effectiveness of CHOP in treating DLBCL in Malawi.
6644 Background: DLBCL is common in Africa, and often curable, but treatment costs and cost-effectiveness are key considerations. WHO defines extremely cost-effective interventions as having an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) < GDP per capita. Methods: We used a decision tree model to conduct a cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis from a health systems perspective in Malawi (2017 GDP per capita $340). Comparisons were made between CHOP vs. palliative care with diagnosis (PC+D), and palliative care without diagnosis (PC-D). Microcosting and clinical outcomes were derived from published prospective data. Costs reflect treatment and 2 years of follow-up. Outcomes reflect a lifetime time horizon. Life expectancies were derived from UNdata, and disability-adjusted life year (DALY) weights from the Global Burden of Disease Study. Costs were analyzed in 2017 US $, and costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% annually. Annual estimates for new DLBCL cases (n=161) were used as input incidence. Probablistic sensitivity analysis was conducted using Crystal Ball software over 1000 simulations. Results: For the base case, the ICER of CHOP versus PC+D is $150/DALY averted, and versus PC-D is $200/DALY averted (Table). The ICER was stable across a wide range of sensitivity analyses. The ICER varied most across the range of progression-free survival estimates ($117-209), and range of costs for CHOP plus follow-up ($71-308). CHOP was extremely cost-effective by the WHO definition in 99% of simulations versus PC+D, and 94% of simulations versus PC-D. In the base case, total annual cost of DLBCL treatment with CHOP in Malawi was $306,221. Conclusions: This is one of the first rigorous cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses for cancer treatment in a low-income country. CHOP is extremely cost-effective compared to palliative care, with ~$300,000 needed annually to treat all DLBCL cases in Malawi. These findings merit external validation, and support continued regional investments in cancer care. [Table: see text]