Rituximab for the first-line treatment of stage III-IV follicular lymphoma (review of Technology Appraisal No. 110): a systematic review and economic evaluation

Cost-Utility Analysis of Rituximab vs Mycophenolate Mofetil for the Treatment of Pemphigus Vulgaris

Importance

There is an increasing body of literature that supports the use of rituximab as a first-line steroid-sparing agent in pemphigus vulgaris. However, the cost of rituximab is substantial compared with conventional agents, and there are limited health economic data to justify its use.

Objective

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of rituximab biosimilars relative to mycophenolate mofetil as a first-line steroid-sparing agent for moderate to severe pemphigus vulgaris.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A cost-utility analysis over a 24-month time horizon was conducted from the perspective of the Australian health care sector using a modeled cohort of treatment-naive adult patients with moderate to severe pemphigus vulgaris. A Markov cohort model was constructed to simulate disease progression following first-line treatment with rituximab biosimilars or mycophenolate mofetil. The simulated cohort transitioned between controlled disease, uncontrolled disease, and death. Efficacy and utility data were obtained from available published literature. Cost data were primarily obtained from published government data. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess uncertainty. Primary outcomes were the changes in cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) over the 24 months.

Interventions

Rituximab biosimilars and mycophenolate mofetil.

Results

The simulated cohort of treatment-naive patients had a mean age of 50.8 years, a female-to-male ratio of 1.24, and moderate to severe disease as classified by the Harman criteria. First-line rituximab biosimilars were associated with a cost reduction of AU$639 and an improvement of 0.07 QALYs compared with mycophenolate mofetil, resulting in an ICER of -AU$8818/QALY. Rituximab biosimilars were therefore more effective and less costly compared with mycophenolate mofetil. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that rituximab biosimilars remained cost-effective across a range of values for cost, utility, and transition probability input parameters and willingness-to-pay thresholds.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cost-utility analysis, rituximab biosimilars were cost-effective compared with mycophenolate mofetil for moderate to severe pemphigus vulgaris. Further investigation into its cost-effectiveness over a longer time horizon is necessary, but the favorable results of this study suggest that the high acquisition costs of rituximab biosimilars may be offset by its effectiveness and provide economic evidence in support of its listing on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme for pemphigus vulgaris.

Cost-utility analysis of apixaban compared with usual care for primary thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients with cancer

Background:

Apixaban (2.5 mg) taken twice daily has been shown to substantially reduce the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) compared with placebo for the primary thromboprophylaxis of ambulatory patients with cancer who are starting chemotherapy and are at intermediate-to-high risk of VTE. We aimed to compare the health system costs and health benefits associated with primary thromboprophylaxis using apixaban with those associated with the current standard of care (where no primary thromboprophylaxis is given), from the perspective of Canada’s publicly funded health care system in this subpopulation of patients with cancer over a lifetime horizon.

Methods:

We performed a cost–utility analysis to estimate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained with primary thromboprophylaxis using apixaban. We obtained baseline event rates and the efficacy of apixaban from the Apixaban for the Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism in High-Risk Ambulatory Cancer Patients (AVERT) trial on apixaban prophylaxis. We estimated relative risk for bleeding, risk of complications associated with VTE treatment, mortality rates, costs and utilities from other published sources.

Results:

Over a lifetime horizon, apixaban resulted in lower costs to the health system (Can$7902.98 v. Can$14 875.82) and an improvement in QALYs (9.089 v. 9.006). The key driver of cost–effectiveness results was the relative risk of VTE as a result of apixaban. Results from the probabilistic analysis showed that at a willingness to pay of Can$50 000 per QALY, the strategy with the highest probability of being most cost-effective was apixaban, with a probability of 99.87%.

Interpretation:

We found that apixaban is a cost-saving option for the primary thromboprophylaxis of ambulatory patients with cancer who are starting chemotherapy and are at intermediate-to-high risk of VTE.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of front-line treatment strategies in early-stage follicular lymphoma

Recent data suggest the use of radiotherapy alone (RT) in Early-Stage Follicular Lymphoma is declining. Cost-effectiveness analysis of treatments has not been performed. We constructed a partitioning model (15-year horizon) to compare RT, combined-modality therapy (CMT) and immunochemotherapy with rituximab maintenance (ICT + RM) from a PET-staged cohort from the Australian Lymphoma Alliance. Lifetime direct health care costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. AUD $75,000 was defined as the willingness-to-pay threshold (WTP). The direct healthcare costs were: RT $12,791, CMT $29,391 and ICT + RM $42,644. Compared with RT, CMT demonstrated minimal improvement in QALYs (+0.01) and an ICER well above the WTP threshold ($1,535,488). Compared with RT, ICT + RM demonstrated an improvement in QALYs (+0.41) with an ICER of $73,319. Modeling a 25% cost reduction with a rituximab biosimilar led to further ICER reductions with ICT + RM ($52,476). ICT + RM is cost-effective in early-stage FL from the Australian taxpayer perspective.

Obinutuzumab Plus Chemotherapy Compared with Rituximab Plus Chemotherapy in Previously Untreated Italian Patients with Advanced Follicular Lymphoma at Intermediate-High Risk: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Objective

To assess the cost-effectiveness of obinutuzumab (O-chemo) in comparison to rituximab (R-chemo) in patients with untreated advanced follicular lymphoma (FL) at intermediate or high risk from an Italian National Health Service (NHS) perspective.

Methods

A previously developed four-state Markov model was adapted to estimate lifetime clinical outcomes and costs of Italian patients with advanced FL and an FL international predictive index score ≥2 in treatment with O-chemo and R-chemo. Life expectancy was derived from the GALLIUM and PRIMA clinical trials. Progression-free survival (PFS), early progressive disease (PD), and treatment duration were extrapolated by fitting parametric distributions to empirical data in GALLIUM and late PD to data in PRIMA. Expected survival was weighed by published utilities. Costs updated to 2020 Euros and health gains occurring after the first year were discounted at an annual 3% rate. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was carried out.

Results

O-chemo was associated with an incremental survival increase (0.97 life-years [LYs]), even when weighted for quality (0.88 quality-adjusted LYs [QALYs]), and incremental costs (around €15,000), driven by longer treatment during PFS state relative to R-chemo. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and incremental cost-utility ratio are both widely accepted by the Italian NHS (around €15,500/LY and €17,000/QALY gained, respectively). PSA simulations confirmed the robustness of results given sensible variations in assumptions.

Conclusion

O-chemo has superior clinical efficacy compared to rituximab, and should be considered a cost-effective option in first-line treatment of patients with advanced FL at intermediate or high risk in Italy. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are below the threshold considered affordable by developed countries.

Exploring the burden of short-term CHOP chemotherapy adverse events in post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease: a comprehensive literature review in lymphoma patients

Purpose

Cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone (CHOP) is a treatment for post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease (PTLD) following solid organ transplant (SOT) after failing rituximab, an aggressive and potentially fatal lymphoma. This study explores the humanistic and economic burden of CHOP-associated adverse events (AEs) in PTLD patients. Since PTLD is rare, searches included lymphoproliferative disease with lymphoma patients.

Design

This comprehensive literature review used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol, pre-specifying the search strategy and criteria. CHOP-associated short-term AEs with an incidence of >4% were sourced from published literature and cancer websites to inform the search strategy. PubMed and EMBASE searches were used to identify humanistic and economic burden studies.

Results

PubMed and EMBASE searches identified 3946 citations with 27 lymphoma studies included. Studies were methodologically heterogeneous. Febrile neutropenia (FN) was the AE most encountered, followed by chemotherapy-induced (CI) anemia (A), infection, CI-nausea and vomiting, thrombocytopenia, and CI-peripheral neuropathy (PN). FN and infections were associated with significant disutility, increased hospitalization, and extended length of stay (LOS). Infections and CIPN significantly impacted the utility of patients and CIA-related fatigue showed reductions in quality of life (QoL). Many patients continue to have QoL deficits continued even after AEs were treated. Management costs varied greatly, ranging from nominal (CIPN) to over $100,000 in the USA for infections, EUR 10,290 in Europe for infections, or CAN$1012 in Canada for FN. Cost of outpatient care varied but had a lower economic impact compared to hospitalizations.

Conclusions

Short-term AEs from CHOP in the lymphoma population were associated with substantial humanistic and economic burden.

Cost-Effectiveness Analyses, Costs and Resource Use, and Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients with Follicular or Marginal Zone Lymphoma: Systematic Reviews

BACKGROUND

Follicular lymphoma (FL) and marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) are types of indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) that develop in the B lymphocytes (also known as B cells).

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to conduct a comprehensive review of studies relating to cost effectiveness, costs and resource use, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with FL or MZL.

METHODS

Three separate systematic reviews were conducted to identify all published evidence on cost effectiveness, costs and resource use, and HRQoL between 2007 and March 2017 using the MEDLINE^®, MEDLINE in-process, E-pubs ahead of print (Ovid SP^®), Embase (Ovid SP^®), NHS EED, and EconLit databases. Select congress proceedings were also searched. Two systematic reviewers independently reviewed titles, abstracts, and full papers against eligibility criteria. Relevant data were extracted into bespoke data extraction templates (DETs) by a single systematic reviewer; these data were then validated for accuracy by a second reviewer against clean copies of the relevant publications.

RESULTS

A total of 25 cost-effectiveness studies (24 in FL; 1 in FL and MZL) met the eligibility criteria. Markov models were the most utilised cost-effectiveness model. US FL studies reported an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $28,565/QALY for first-line rituximab-cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CVP) versus CVP, and $43,000/QALY for second-line obinutuzumab plus bendamustine (G + B) followed by G maintenance versus B. In the UK, ICERs were £1529-10,834/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for first-line rituximab + chemotherapy versus chemotherapy, £27,988/QALY for second-line G + B + G-maintenance versus B, and £62,653/QALY for second-line idelalisib versus chemotherapy and/or rituximab. Five costs/resource use and four HRQoL studies were identified in FL, and none in MZL. US mean lifetime costs in first-line patients ranged from $108,000 (rituximab) to $130,300 (rituximab-cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin hydrochloride, vincristine and prednisolone [CHOP]), and from £2185 (watch-and-wait) to £17,054 (chemotherapy) in the UK. In a multinational study, more rituximab-refractory patients receiving G + B + G-maintenance reported a meaningful improvement in total FACT-Lym scores compared with patients receiving B. In the UK, total FACT-Lym scores were meaningfully higher for newly diagnosed patients compared with patients with progression (136.04 vs. 109.7).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

We found a small body of evidence of quality of life, and potentially cost-effective treatment options for FL; however, no evidence was reported on MZL specifically. The significant data gaps in knowledge in these diseases demonstrate a marked need for further studies.

Determining the Baseline Strategy in a Cost-Effectiveness Analysis with Treatment Sequences

In response to a growing number of treatment options in many disease areas, health technology assessments need to evaluate sequences of treatments instead of individual interventions. This study investigated the impact of the baseline strategy on the cost-effectiveness results, when a sequence of treatments was used. First, we reviewed submissions to the UK National Institute for Health and Care and Excellence to understand how economic models that used comparisons of treatment sequences defined the baseline strategy. We then built a simple Markov model to use as a case study. The analysis we conducted contained four hypothetical treatments of varying cost-effectiveness relationships to a fixed control (best supportive care): Treatment A was cost effective, Treatment B was extendedly dominated by Treatment A, Treatment C was cost effective, but had a greater cost than both Treatment A and Treatment B, and Treatment D was not cost effective. Our review of the National Institute for Health and Care and Excellence submissions showed that, in most cases, authors relied on clinical guidelines, expert opinion or previously developed models to define the baseline strategy (n = 31). In several cases, the choice of a baseline strategy was not explained (n = 9). Several studies used the model to identify the optimal position for the new intervention (n = 5). Using the model, all possible permutations between the hypothetical treatments were generated and ranked by their net monetary benefit. We showed that (1) a non-cost-effective treatment would never be part of an optimal sequence and (2) the choice of baseline treatment sequence can change the cost-effectiveness estimate of a new intervention. If the aim of the decision maker is the efficient distribution of healthcare resources based on cost effectiveness, then the baseline strategy should be created based on the ranking of the net-monetary benefit. Ignoring the cost effectiveness of individual treatments when defining the baseline strategy, may lead to spurious results.

Obinutuzumab with Bendamustine for Treating Follicular Lymphoma Refractory to Rituximab: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal

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.

Modeling Treatment Sequences in Pharmacoeconomic Models

As the number of interventions available in a therapeutic area increases, the relevant decision questions in health technology assessment (HTA) expand to compare treatment sequences instead of discrete treatments and identify optimal sequences or position for a particular treatment in a sequence. The objective of this work was to review approaches used to model treatment sequences and provide practical guidance on conceptualizing whether and how to model sequences in health economic models. Economic models including treatment sequencing assessed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence were reviewed, as these assessments generally provide both policy relevance and comprehensive model detail. We identified 40 treatment-sequence models in the following disease areas: oncology (13), autoimmune (7), cardiovascular (6), neurology/mental health (4), infectious disease (2), diabetes (2), and other (6). Modeling techniques included discrete event simulation (6), individual state-transition (3), decision tree (3) and, most commonly, cohort state-transition with tracking states (28). In most cases, treatment sequencing had been incorporated to reflect either clinical practice or clinical trial design. In other cases, it was used to assess where in a treatment sequence a new treatment should be placed, or to evaluate the addition of more efficacious treatment options to a current treatment sequence. Important considerations for determining how to best model sequences include the number of treatment options, patient heterogeneity, key outcomes, and event risk (time-varying or constant). The biggest challenge is the scarcity of clinical data, as clinical trials do not commonly evaluate different treatment sequences.

Economic evaluation of therapeutic cancer vaccines and immunotherapy: a systematic review

Cancer immunotherapy is a rapidly growing field in oncology. One attractive feature of cancer immunotherapy is the purported combination of minimal toxicity and durable responses. However such treatments are often very expensive. Given the wide-spread concern over rising health care costs, it is important for all stakeholders to be well-informed on the cost and cost-effectiveness of cancer immunotherapies. We performed a comprehensive literature review of cost and cost-effectiveness research on therapeutic cancer vaccines and monoclonal antibodies, to better understand the economic impacts of these treatments. We summarized our literature searches into three tables by types of papers: systematic review of economic studies of a specific agent, cost and cost-effectiveness analysis. Our review showed that out of the sixteen immunotherapy agents approved, nine had relevant published economic studies. Five out of the nine studied immunotherapy agents had been covered in systematic reviews. Among those, only one (rituximab for non-Hodgkin lymphoma) was found to be cost-effective. Of the four immunotherapy drugs not covered in systematic reviews (alemtuzumab, ipilimumab, sipuleucel-T, ofatumumab), high incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was reported for each. Many immunotherapies have not had economic evaluations, and those that have been studied show high ICERs or frank lack of cost-effectiveness. One major hurdle in improving the cost-effectiveness of cancer immunotherapies is to identify predictive biomarkers for selecting appropriate patients as recipients of these expensive therapies. We discuss the implications surrounding the economic factors involved in cancer immunotherapies and suggest that further research on cost and cost-effectiveness of newer cancer vaccines and immunotherapies are warranted as this is a rapidly growing field with many new drugs on the horizon.

Faster title and abstract screening? Evaluating Abstrackr, a semi-automated online screening program for systematic reviewers

BACKGROUND

Citation screening is time consuming and inefficient. We sought to evaluate the performance of Abstrackr, a semi-automated online tool for predictive title and abstract screening.

METHODS

Four systematic reviews (aHUS, dietary fibre, ECHO, rituximab) were used to evaluate Abstrackr. Citations from electronic searches of biomedical databases were imported into Abstrackr, and titles and abstracts were screened and included or excluded according to the entry criteria. This process was continued until Abstrackr predicted and classified the remaining unscreened citations as relevant or irrelevant. These classification predictions were checked for accuracy against the original review decisions. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the effects of including case reports in the aHUS dataset whilst screening and the effects of using larger imbalanced datasets with the ECHO dataset. The performance of Abstrackr was calculated according to the number of relevant studies missed, the workload saving, the false negative rate, and the precision of the algorithm to correctly predict relevant studies for inclusion, i.e. further full text inspection.

RESULTS

Of the unscreened citations, Abstrackr's prediction algorithm correctly identified all relevant citations for the rituximab and dietary fibre reviews. However, one relevant citation in both the aHUS and ECHO reviews was incorrectly predicted as not relevant. The workload saving achieved with Abstrackr varied depending on the complexity and size of the reviews (9 % rituximab, 40 % dietary fibre, 67 % aHUS, and 57 % ECHO). The proportion of citations predicted as relevant, and therefore, warranting further full text inspection (i.e. the precision of the prediction) ranged from 16 % (aHUS) to 45 % (rituximab) and was affected by the complexity of the reviews. The false negative rate ranged from 2.4 to 21.7 %. Sensitivity analysis performed on the aHUS dataset increased the precision from 16 to 25 % and increased the workload saving by 10 % but increased the number of relevant studies missed. Sensitivity analysis performed with the larger ECHO dataset increased the workload saving (80 %) but reduced the precision (6.8 %) and increased the number of missed citations.

CONCLUSIONS

Semi-automated title and abstract screening with Abstrackr has the potential to save time and reduce research waste.

Network meta-analysis combining individual patient and aggregate data from a mixture of study designs with an application to pulmonary arterial hypertension

Background

Network meta-analysis (NMA) is a methodology for indirectly comparing, and strengthening direct comparisons of two or more treatments for the management of disease by combining evidence from multiple studies. It is sometimes not possible to perform treatment comparisons as evidence networks restricted to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) may be disconnected. We propose a Bayesian NMA model that allows to include single-arm, before-and-after, observational studies to complete these disconnected networks. We illustrate the method with an indirect comparison of treatments for pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH).

Methods

Our method uses a random effects model for placebo improvements to include single-arm observational studies into a general NMA. Building on recent research for binary outcomes, we develop a covariate-adjusted continuous-outcome NMA model that combines individual patient data (IPD) and aggregate data from two-arm RCTs with the single-arm observational studies. We apply this model to a complex comparison of therapies for PAH combining IPD from a phase-III RCT of imatinib as add-on therapy for PAH and aggregate data from RCTs and single-arm observational studies, both identified by a systematic review.

Results

Through the inclusion of observational studies, our method allowed the comparison of imatinib as add-on therapy for PAH with other treatments. This comparison had not been previously possible due to the limited RCT evidence available. However, the credible intervals of our posterior estimates were wide so the overall results were inconclusive. The comparison should be treated as exploratory and should not be used to guide clinical practice.

Conclusions

Our method for the inclusion of single-arm observational studies allows the performance of indirect comparisons that had previously not been possible due to incomplete networks composed solely of available RCTs. We also built on many recent innovations to enable researchers to use both aggregate data and IPD. This method could be used in similar situations where treatment comparisons have not been possible due to restrictions to RCT evidence and where a mixture of aggregate data and IPD are available.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12874-015-0007-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Cost and Resource Use of Pemphigus and Pemphigoid Disorders Pre- and Post-Rituximab

Background

Rituximab (RTX) is increasingly used for the treatment of pemphigus and pemphigoid disorders. The high cost of RTX frequently limits its use and access.

Objective

To determine the health system resources and costs associated with RTX treatment of pemphigus and pemphigoid.

Methods

Health system resources and costs attributed to a convenience sample of 89 patients with either pemphigus or pemphigoid were identified, quantified, and valued 6 months prior to and following RTX initiation between May 2006 and August 2012. Overall cohort costs and costs per patient were calculated (2013 Can$).

Results

The overall cohort cost for 6 months pre-RTX was $3.8 million and for 6 months post-RTX was $2.6 million. The average cost per patient decreased from $42,231 to $29,423 (30.3% decrease). The main cost driver was intravenous immunoglobulin.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that RTX is effective in reducing health system resources and the costs associated with the treatment of pemphigus and pemphigoid.

Comparing the cost-effectiveness of rituximab maintenance and radioimmunotherapy consolidation versus observation following first-line therapy in patients with follicular lymphoma

BACKGROUND

Phase 3 randomized trials have shown that maintenance rituximab (MR) therapy or radioimmunotherapy (RIT) consolidation following frontline therapy can improve progression-free survival for patients with follicular lymphoma (FL), but the cost-effectiveness of these approaches with respect to observation has not been examined using a common modeling framework.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate and compare the economic impact of MR and RIT consolidation versus observation, respectively, following the first-line induction therapy for patients with advanced-stage FL.

METHODS

We developed Markov models to estimate patients' lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and life-years (LYs) after MR, RIT, and observation following frontline FL treatment from the US payer's perspective. Progression risks, adverse event probabilities, costs, and utilities were estimated from clinical data of Primary RItuximab and MAintenance (PRIMA) trial, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) trial (for MR), and First-line Indolent Trial (for RIT) and the published literature. We evaluated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for direct comparisons between MR/RIT and observation. Model robustness was addressed by one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Compared with observation, MR provided an additional 1.089 QALYs (1.099 LYs) and 1.399 QALYs (1.391 LYs) on the basis of the PRIMA trial and the ECOG trial, respectively, and RIT provided an additional 1.026 QALYs (1.034 LYs). The incremental cost per QALY gained was $40,335 (PRIMA) or $37,412 (ECOG) for MR and $40,851 for RIT. MR and RIT had comparable incremental QALYs before first progression, whereas RIT had higher incremental costs of adverse events due to higher incidences of cytopenias.

CONCLUSIONS

MR and RIT following frontline FL therapy demonstrated favorable and similar cost-effectiveness profiles. The model results should be interpreted within the specific clinical settings of each trial. Selection of MR, RIT, or observation should be based on patient characteristics and expected trade-offs for these alternatives.

Bendamustine-rituximab: a cost-utility analysis in first-line treatment of indolent non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in England and Wales

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of bendamustine-rituximab (B-R) compared with CHOP-R (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone, rituximab) and CVP-R (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone, rituximab) as first-line treatment for patients with advanced indolent non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL).

METHODS

A patient-level simulation was adapted from the model used by the University of Sheffield School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR) in a health technology appraisal of rituximab for first-line treatment of follicular lymphoma. This approach allowed modelling of the complex treatment pathways in indolent NHL. Data from a Phase 3 randomized, open-label trial were used to compare B-R with CHOP-R. The relative efficacy of CHOP-R and CVP-R was estimated using an indirect treatment comparison similar to the original ScHARR approach. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the National Health Service in England and Wales, using a lifetime time horizon. A number of one-way sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted, including one using recently published data comparing CVP-R with CHOP-R.

RESULTS

The deterministic incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was £5249 per quality adjusted life year (QALY) for B-R vs CHOP-R, and £8092 per QALY for B-R vs CVP-R. The alternative scenario using direct data comparing CVP-R with CHOP-R approximately halved the ICER for B-R vs CVP-R to £4733. Owing to its better toxicity profile, B-R reduced the cost of treating adverse events by over £1000 per patient vs CHOP-R.

LIMITATIONS

The main limitations were: immaturity of overall survival data from the Phase 3 trial; reliance on quality-of-life data from previous health technology appraisals (as this was not collected in the trial); and a lack of direct evidence or a network of connected evidence comparing B-R with CVP-R.

CONCLUSIONS

The ICERs for B-R vs CHOP-R and CVP-R were considerably below the thresholds normally regarded as cost-effective in England and Wales (£20,000-30,000 per QALY).

Detection of the FCGR3a polymorphism using a real-time polymerase chain reaction assay

The fragment crystallizable (Fc) region of the immunoglobulin G, low affinity III A receptor (FCGR3a, also known as CD16) belongs to the Fc gamma receptor family (FCGR), which plays an important role in immunoinflammatory processes. It is a low affinity, transmembrane receptor that is mainly expressed in monocytes, natural killer cells, and macrophages. It has been implicated in various inflammatory conditions, and recently a polymorphism (rs396991) in this gene has been shown to influence response to rituximab (anti-CD20) therapy in various disorders. We evaluated two molecular methods to genotype this polymorphism. Archived, formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded samples from 26 biopsies of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma were retrieved and DNA was extracted. The samples were tested for the FCGR3a polymorphism using real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) followed by melt curve analysis or by a standard TaqMan allelic discrimination assay using the ABI 7500 FAST real-time PCR instrument. With the TaqMan allelic discrimination assay, we found that 16 cases were the wild type genotype, homozygous phenylalanine (F/F), for the FCGR3a receptor, whereas two cases had the homozygous valine (V/V) polymorphism and eight cases were heterozygous with a V/F genotype. Results with the real-time PCR followed by melt curve analysis were similar for 25 cases; however, four samples did not have sufficient DNA for the melt curve analysis method, and the result from one sample was discordant. The new TaqMan assay offers several advantages over previously published assays, such as faster turnaround time and ease of interpretation. These performance characteristics make it highly suitable for use in a clinical laboratory.