Pharmacoeconomic Study Of The Use Of Rituximab For Subcutaneous Administration In The Treatment Of Follicular Lymphoma

Kulikov, A.Yu.; Rybchenko, Yu.V.

doi:10.1016/j.jval.2015.09.1207

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The cost effectiveness of first-line treatments was evaluated in eight studies (seven for FL, one for FL and MZL) [7][8][9][10][11][12][13], and nine studies reported cost-effectiveness of maintenance treatment [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]. Six studies were found to report cost effectiveness of treatments for relapsed/refractory (R/R) FL, while only three studies reported cost-effectiveness evidence for refractory FL.…”

Section: Model/analysis Design Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Monga¹,

Garside

Gurung

et al. 2020

PharmacoEconomics Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 RelevanceWe 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.

show abstract

Section: Model/analysis Design Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Time horizons ranged between 5 and 30 years, and cycle life ranged from 1 to 6 months. One abstract described differences in routes of treatment administration (subcutaneous vs. intravenous RR), but model characteristics were not described [7].…”

Section: Model/analysis Design Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%