Cost-effectiveness analysis of mosunetuzumab for treatment of relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma after two or more lines of systemic therapy in the United States.

AIMS: Mosunetuzumab has received accelerated approval by the US Food and Drug Administration for adult patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) follicular lymphoma (FL) after two or more lines of systemic therapy. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of mosunetuzumab for the treatment of R/R FL from a US private payer perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A partitioned survival model simulated lifetime costs and outcomes of mosunetuzumab against seven comparators: axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel), tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel), tazemetostat (taz, EZH2 wild-type only), rituximab plus lenalidomide (R-Len) or bendamustine (R-Benda), obinutuzumab plus bendamustine (O-Benda), and a retrospective real-world cohort (RW) based on current patterns of care derived from US electronic health records (Flatiron Health). Efficacy data for mosunetuzumab were from the pivotal Phase II GO29781 trial (NCT02500407). Relative treatment efficacy was estimated from indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs). Costs included were related to treatment, adverse events, routine care, and terminal care. Except for drug costs (March 2023), all costs were inflated to 2022 US dollars. Costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Net monetary benefit (NMB) was calculated using a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY. RESULTS: Mosunetuzumab dominated taz, tisa-cel, and axi-cel with greater QALYs and lower costs. Mosunetuzumab was projected to be cost-effective against R-Benda, O-Benda, and RW with ICERs of $78,607, $42,731, and $21,434, respectively. Mosunetuzumab incurred lower costs but lower QALYs vs. R-Len. NMBs showed that mosunetuzumab was cost-effective against comparators except R-Len. LIMITATIONS: Without head-to-head comparative data, the model had to rely on ITCs, some of which were affected by residual bias. Model inputs were obtained from multiple sources. Extensive sensitivity analyses assessed the importance of these uncertainties. CONCLUSION: Mosunetuzumab is estimated to be cost-effective compared with approved regimens except R-Len for the treatment of adults with R/R FL.

Real-world total cost of care by line of therapy in relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

AIMS: There are multiple recently approved treatments and a lack of clear standard-of-care therapies for relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). While total cost of care (TCC) by the number of lines of therapy (LoTs) has been evaluated, more recent cost estimates using real-world data are needed. This analysis assessed real-world TCC of R/R DLBCL therapies by LoT using the IQVIA PharMetrics Plus database (1 January 2015-31 December 2021), in US patients aged ≥18 years treated with rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) or an R-CHOP-like regimen as first-line therapy. METHODS: Treatment costs and resources in the R/R setting were assessed by LoT. A sensitivity analysis identified any potential confounding of the results caused by the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare utilization and costs. Overall, 310 patients receiving a second- or later-line treatment were included; baseline characteristics were similar across LoTs. Inpatient costs represented the highest percentage of total costs, followed by outpatient and pharmacy costs. RESULTS: Mean TCC per-patient-per-month generally increased by LoT ($40,604, $48,630, and $59,499 for second-, third- and fourth-line treatments, respectively). Costs were highest for fourth-line treatment for all healthcare resource utilization categories. Sensitivity analysis findings were consistent with the overall analysis, indicating results were not confounded by the COVID-19 pandemic. LIMITATIONS: There was potential misclassification of LoT; claims data were processed through an algorithm, possibly introducing errors. A low number of patients met the inclusion criteria. Patients who switched insurance plans, had insurance terminated, or whose enrollment period met the end of data availability may have had truncated follow-up, potentially resulting in underestimated costs. CONCLUSION: Total healthcare costs increased with each additional LoT in the R/R DLBCL setting. Further improvements of first-line treatments that reduce the need for subsequent LoTs would potentially lessen the economic burden of DLBCL.

Real-World Survival, Healthcare Resource Utilization, and Costs Among U.S. Elderly Patients With Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL) Treated With R-GemOx in the Relapsed/Refractory Setting.

BACKGROUND: Little recent real-world evidence exists on overall survival, healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), and costs among R/R DLBCL patients treated with the combination of rituximab, gemcitabine, and oxaliplatin (R-GemOx), a widely-used regimen for patients ineligible for stem cell transplant due to age or comorbidities. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective analysis used 2014 to 2019 U.S. Medicare claims. Individuals aged ≥66 years with a new DLBCL diagnosis between October 1, 2015 and December 31, 2018 and continuous fee-for-service Medicare Part A, B, and D coverage in the 12 months pre- and postindex were followed to identify the sample of patients with evidence of R-GemOx treatment in the second-line (2L) or third-line (3L) setting. Outcomes included overall survival, all-cause and DLBCL-related HCRU, and costs after R-GemOx initiation. RESULTS: The final sample included 157 patients who received treatment with R-GemOx in the R/R settings (mean (SD) age 77.5 (6.0) years, 39.5% age>80 years; 66.9% male; 91.1% White). Of these, 126 received R-GemOx in the 2L setting and 31 received R-GemOx in the 3L setting. Median overall survival from R-GemOx initiation was 6.9 months and 6.8 months in the 2L and 3L setting, respectively. Rates of all-cause hospitalization (68.1% [2L] and >90% [3L]) and hospice use (42.9% [2L] and 51.7% [3L]) were high in the 12 months after R-GemOx initiation. All-cause total costs were substantial ($144,653 [2L] and $142,812 [3L]) and approximately 80% of costs were DLBCL-related within 12 months of R-GemOx initiation. CONCLUSION: Elderly U.S. Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed with DLBCL who initiated R-GemOx treatment in the R/R setting have poor overall survival, high rates of HCRU, and substantial costs.

Real-World Healthcare Cost Savings and Reduced Relapse Rate with Off-Label Rituximab versus Disease-Modifying Treatments Approved for Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis: A Nationwide Cost-Effectiveness Study.

OBJECTIVE: Although off-label use of rituximab is a common alternative to disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) approved for multiple sclerosis (MS) in several countries, the impact of this on treatment cost-effectiveness is not well known. METHODS: We evaluated the relative cost-effectiveness of rituximab and MS-approved DMTs in a register-based cohort study of Swedish residents with relapsing-remitting MS, aged 18-65 years, starting treatment with rituximab, natalizumab, fingolimod, or dimethyl fumarate between January 2010 and July 2016, and followed through July 2021 (n = 5,924). By linking the population-based Swedish MS register to several Swedish health care and demographic registers, we estimated health care costs in relation to number of relapses, over 5 years from treatment start. Differences between treatments were estimated in inverse probability of treatment-weighted regression models, adjusting for a broad range of potential confounders covering demographics, medical history, and MS-related clinical characteristics. RESULTS: Off-label rituximab was associated with both lower total health care costs (mean cost savings ranged $35,000-$66,000 vs. each approved DMT), and fewer relapses (mean number of prevented relapses ranged 0.12-0.22), per started therapy over 5 years. Results were robust to variations in discounting and pricing of health care visits, with the main driver of cost-savings being the price of the index drug itself. INTERPRETATION: The cost-effectiveness of rituximab dominated the MS-approved alternatives. Off-label, low-dose rituximab should be considered for persons with MS and could reduce barriers to treatment, especially in resource-limited settings. ANN NEUROL 2024;95:1099-1111.

Assessing the transition from intravenous to subcutaneous delivery of rituximab: Benefits for payers, health care professionals, and patients with lymphoma.

Subcutaneous (SC) administration of rituximab provides an opportunity for reduced patient treatment burden and increased healthcare efficiencies as an alternative to intravenous (IV) rituximab. There is minimal evidence comparing costs associated with SC and IV rituximab in a US setting. This research assessed the impact of transitioning patients from IV to SC rituximab for treatment of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) from the US payer, provider, and patient perspective. We developed a model to estimate cost differences for transitioning 20% of a patient cohort from IV to SC rituximab. We included patients with incident diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, incident and recurrent follicular lymphoma, and incident and recurrent chronic lymphocytic leukemia. In the model, each patient received the same number of doses and that there was no difference in discontinuation between cohorts due to non-inferior efficacy and a similar safety profile. Model inputs were collected from published literature and publicly available data. Scenario analyses tested the impact of availability of low-cost biosimilars. In the base case (1,000,000 covered lives), we estimated a total of 157 patients, with 769 total drug administrations. A transition of 20% of patients from IV to SC was projected to generate $153,000 in payer savings, increase provider capacity by 270 hours, and free 470 hours of patient time. Scenario analyses suggest SC administration will be cost saving for payers even with a market where biosimilars approach 50% market share. A 20% transition to SC rituximab in a single cohort of patients has the potential to generate significant US health system value in the form of payer savings, increased practice capacity, and patient time.

A Prospective Economic Analysis of Early Outcome Data From the Alliance A041202/ CCTG CLC.2 Randomized Phase III Trial Of Bendamustine-Rituximab Compared With Ibrutinib-Based Regimens in Untreated Older Patients With Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia.

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.

Comparison of best supportive care, CHOP, or R-CHOP for treatment of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in Malawi: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cost-effectiveness data for cancer treatment are needed from sub-Saharan Africa, where diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is a common, curable cancer. In high-income countries, the standard of care for DLBCL is R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) chemoimmunotherapy. Rituximab is often not available in sub-Saharan Africa due to perceived unaffordability, and treatment with CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) is common. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of treatment in Malawi, comparing best supportive care, CHOP, or R-CHOP in patients with DLBCL. METHODS: For this cost-effectiveness analysis, we used published Malawi microcosting data, clinical data from a prospective cohort treated with CHOP, and clinical trial data evaluating R-CHOP. We used a decision-tree model to calculate costs per disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) averted from the health system perspective for the treatment of patients with DLBCL with best supportive care, CHOP, or R-CHOP, running the model on a per-patient basis and a Malawi population-level basis. We used the WHO definitions of cost-effective (three times the GDP per capita of the country) and extremely cost-effective (equal to the GDP per capita of the country) as willingness-to-pay thresholds for Malawi. FINDINGS: On a per-patient level, compared with best supportive care, CHOP was estimated to avert a mean 7·4 DALYs at an incremental cost of US$1384, for an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $189 per DALY averted, which is substantially lower than the willingness-to-pay threshold (extremely cost-effective). Compared with CHOP, R-CHOP was estimated to avert 2·8 DALYs at an incremental cost of $3324, resulting in an ICER of $1204 per DALY averted, which is slightly higher than the cost-effective willingness-to-pay threshold. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, CHOP remained cost-effective for DLBCL treatment in more than 99% of simulations, whereas R-CHOP was lower than the threshold in 46% of simulations. INTERPRETATION: We estimated CHOP to be cost-effective for DLBCL treatment in Malawi, and that the addition of rituximab might be cost-effective. Despite upfront costs, DLBCL treatment is probably a prudent investment relative to other accepted health interventions in sub-Saharan Africa. FUNDING: National Institutes of Health.

Cost-effectiveness of obinutuzumab versus rituximab biosimilars for previously untreated follicular lymphoma.

BACKGROUND: In the randomized phase 3 GALLIUM trial, first-line treatment with obinutuzumab (GA101; G) plus chemotherapy (G + chemo) resulted in superior progression-free survival (PFS) compared with rituximab plus chemotherapy (R + chemo) for patients with follicular lymphoma (FL). G + chemo was found to be cost-effective when compared with R + chemo (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] of approximately $2,300 per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained). Two rituximab biosimilars, rituximab-abbs (Ra) and rituximab-pvvr (Rp), have been approved by the FDA for use in this setting. However, the cost-effectiveness of G + chemo versus Ra + chemo and Rp + chemo has not yet been estimated. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of G + chemo versus Ra + chemo and Rp + chemo in the first-line treatment of FL. METHODS: We adapted an existing Markov model that compared G + chemo with R + chemo, using investigator-assessed PFS and postprogression survival data from the GALLIUM trial to model overall survival. All patients in the study received induction chemoimmunotherapy with either G + chemo or R + chemo, with responders then receiving obinutuzumab or rituximab maintenance therapy for 2 years or until disease progression. We assumed that the efficacy and safety of the rituximab biosimilars plus chemotherapy were the same as the R + chemo arm of the GALLIUM study. Drug utilization and treatment duration were also derived from GALLIUM. Health care costs were based on Medicare reimbursements, and drug costs were average sale prices for intravenous therapies or wholesale acquisition costs for oral therapies used after progression. Utility estimates were based on the GALLIUM trial data and published literature. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the key drivers of the model and uncertainty in the results. Results: Treatment with G + chemo led to an increase of 0.93 QALYs relative to rituximab biosimilars plus chemotherapy (95% credible range [CR] = 0.36-1.46). The total cost of G + chemo was $191,317, whereas the total costs of Ra + chemo and Rp + chemo were $164,340 (Δ14.1%) and $169,755 (Δ11.3%), respectively, with G + chemo resulting in incremental costs of $26,978 (95% CR = $19,781-$33,119) and $21,562 (95% CR = $14,473-$28,389), respectively. The incremental total drug and administration costs were $32,678 (Δ25.4%) and $27,263 (Δ21.2%) for G + chemo versus Ra + chemo and G + chemo versus Rp + chemo, respectively. There were cost savings of $7,050 (Δ-12.4%) related to disease progression for G + chemo ($56,727) compared with Ra + chemo and Rp + chemo ($63,777). ICERs were $28,879 and $23,082 per QALY gained for G + chemo versus Ra + chemo and Rp + chemo, respectively. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, G + chemo was cost-effective at the $50,000 and $100,000 per QALY thresholds versus both Ra + chemo (88% and 98% probabilities of cost-effectiveness, respectively) and Rp + chemo (93% and 98%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: G + chemo is projected to be cost-effective versus rituximab biosimilars plus chemotherapy in the United States as first-line treatment for FL, driven by increased QALYs for G + chemo and cost savings from delayed disease progression. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Genentech, a member of the Roche Group. The study sponsor was involved in study design, data interpretation, and writing of the report. All authors approved the decision to submit the report for publication. Spencer and Guzauskas report fees from Genentech during the conduct of the study. Felizzi was employed by F. Hoffmann-La Roche at the time this study was conducted; Launonen is an employees of F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Felizzi and Launonen previously had share ownership in Novartis. Dawson and Masaquel are employees of Genentech, and they have stock options in F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Veenstra reports fees from Genentech, during the conduct of this study and outside of the submitted work. This work was presented, in part, at the AACR Virtual Meeting Advances in Malignant Lymphoma meeting (virtual; August 17-19, 2020) and the SOHO annual meeting (virtual; September 9-12, 2020).

One-year direct costs of biological therapy in rheumatoid arthritis and its predictive factors: data from the Moroccan RBSMR registry.

The aim of the study was to estimate the annual direct costs of biological therapies in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and to establish possible factors associated with those costs. The main data source was the Moroccan registry of biological therapies in rheumatic diseases (RBSMR Registry). We included patients with available 1-year data. Variables related to socio-economic status, disease and biological therapy were collected. Direct costs included prices of biologics, costs of infusions, and subcutaneous injections. Differences in costs across groups were tested by Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Correlations analysis was performed in search of factors associated with high costs. We included 197 rheumatoid arthritis patients. The mean age was 52.3 ± 11 years, with female predominance 86.8%. Receiving one of the following therapies: rituximab (n = 132), tocilizumab (n = 37), or TNF-blockers (n = 28). Median one-year direct costs per patient were €1665 [€1472-€9879]. The total annual direct costs were € 978,494. Rituximab, constituted 25.7% of the total annual budget. TNF-blockers and tocilizumab represented 27.3% and 47% of this overall budget, respectively. Although the costs were not significantly different in terms of gender or level of study, the insurance type significantly affected the cost estimation. A positive correlation was found between the annual direct cost and body mass index (r = 0.15, p = 0.04). In Morocco, a developing country, the annual direct costs of biological therapy are high. Our results may contribute to the development of strategies for better governance of these costs.

Adverse Events and Economic Burden Among Patients Receiving Systemic Treatment for Mantle Cell Lymphoma: A Real-World Retrospective Cohort Study.

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.

The challenge of sustainability in healthcare systems: economic and organizational impact of subcutaneous formulations for rituximab and trastuzumab in onco-hematology.

Background: This study estimated the economic and organisational impact of using subcutaneous injection (SC) formulations of two monoclonal antibodies (rituximab and trastuzumab) in patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) and HER2 + breast cancer (BC).Methods: The database of the Unit of Oncology and Haematology of the IRST of Meldola was used. The analysis was structured as follows: i) measurement of the volume of Day-Hospital activity; ii) identification of activities and time to complete the administration; iii) estimate the mean cost of an SC or IV (intravenous infusion); iv) estimate the impact of SC formulations on the volumes of activities provided; v) estimate the social impact of SC or IV formulations.Results: The use of an SC formulation was associated a significant reduction in the time that the patient takes to complete the administration (trastuzumab -1 hr 18 min; rituximab -2 hr 24 min) and in consumption of healthcare resources and related costs for trastuzumab (IV: € 1781; SC: € 1701) and rituximab (IV: € 2116; SC: € 1941).Conclusion: The adoption of the SC formulation for rituximab and trastuzumab can generate a greater value for both the national healthcare system and the patient compared to an IV formulation.

Cost effectiveness of caplacizumab in acquired thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura.

Acquired thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP) is a life-threatening disease characterized by thrombotic microangiopathy leading to end-organ damage. The standard of care (SOC) treatment is therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) alongside immunomodulation with steroids, with increasing use of rituximab ± other immunomodulatory agents. The addition of caplacizumab, a nanobody targeting von Willebrand factor, was shown to accelerate platelet count recovery and reduce TPE treatments and hospital length of stay in TTP patients treated in 2 major randomized clinical trials. The addition of caplacizumab to SOC also led to increased bleeding from transient reductions in von Willebrand factor and increased relapse rates. Using data from the 2 clinical trials of caplacizumab, we performed the first-ever cost-effectiveness analysis in TTP. Over a 5-year period, the projected incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in our Markov model was $1 482 260, significantly above the accepted 2019 US willingness-to-pay threshold of $195 300. One-way sensitivity analyses showed the utility of the well state and the cost of caplacizumab to have the largest effects on ICER, with a reduction in caplacizumab cost demonstrating the single greatest impact on lowering the ICER. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, SOC was favored over caplacizumab in 100% of 10 000 iterations. Our data indicate that the addition of caplacizumab to SOC in treatment of acquired TTP is not cost effective because of the high cost of the medication and its failure to improve relapse rates. The potential impact of caplacizumab on health system cost using longer term follow-up data merits further study.

Cost-utility analysis of second-line therapy with rituximab compared to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare direct costs and treatment utility associated with the second-line therapy with rituximab and tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) (adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab) in patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) using data from a prospective registry. METHODS: Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) scores and RA-related healthcare resource utilization data (biologic agents and visits to rheumatologists) were extracted from a registry (Quebec, Canada) for patients with RA (n = 129) who had to discontinue a first-line TNFi and were treated with rituximab, adalimumab, etanercept, or infliximab as the second-line therapy between January 2007 and May 2016. A decision analytic model followed patients for 1 and 6 years. Treatment utility was measured as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, which were calculated from HAQ-DI scores observed over the follow-up time. Quebec 2020 unit costs (Canadian Dollars, $) were used to value healthcare resource consumption. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed with 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations to assess uncertainty around point-estimates of cost-utility. RESULTS: Over 1-year, rituximab and etanercept resulted in the effectiveness of 0.80 QALYs gained at the cost of $14,291and $18,880, respectively, and were dominant (i.e. associated with lower costs and more QALYs gained) compared to adalimumab (0.79 QALYs, $18,825) and infliximab (0.76 QALYs, $20,158). Over 6-years, rituximab (4.42 QALYs, $82,402) was dominant compared to adalimumab (4.30 QALYs, $101,420), etanercept (4.02 QALYs, $99,191), and infliximab (3.71 QALYs, $100,396). In the probabilistic analysis, rituximab was dominant over adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab with the probability of 0.51, 0.62, and 0.65, respectively. CONCLUSION: Real-world data revealed differences between alternative biologic agents used as the second-line therapy in terms of both treatment costs for the healthcare system and utility of treatment for patients. Therefore, new guidelines on the order of selecting and switching biologic agents should be explored.

US cost-effectiveness of polatuzumab vedotin, bendamustine and rituximab in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

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.

Successful treatment of refractory thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura associated with systemic lupus erythematosus with combination of plasma exchange and low-dose rituximab.

OBJECTIVES: Thrombotic thrombocytopenia purpura (TTP) associated with systemic lupus erythematous (SLE) (i.e., SLE-TTP) is a rare life-threatening disease often requiring intensive immunosuppressive agents, in addition to high-dose corticosteroids and plasma exchange (PEX). The optimal therapy of rituximab is unclear, but 375 mg/m2 weekly for 4 weeks is the usual practice, adopted from regimens for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. We reported two cases of refractory SLE-TTP that showed good efficacy and prognosis with combination of methylprednisolone (MP) pulse, plasma exchange and low-dose rituximab (100 mg weekly for 4 weeks) treatment. METHODS: Clinical data and treatment outcomes were reviewed of two patients diagnosed with refractory SLE-TTP at Peking Union Medical College Hospital between July 2017 and July 2018. RESULTS: Both patients had SLE and presented with microangiopathic anemia and thrombocytopenia. Laboratory assays revealed high anti-nuclear antibody titers, reduced complement 3 and 4 levels, proteinuria, significantly elevated lactate dehydrogenase, schistocytes on peripheral blood smear, low ADAMTS13 activity, and the presence of ADAMTS13 inhibitor. In both patients, platelet counts remained below 50 × 109/L after MP pulse and 6 PEXs, confirming the diagnosis of refractory SLE-TTP. Low-dose rituximab (100 mg weekly for 4 weeks) was administered in both cases, resulting in normalization of platelet counts and significant reductions in B-lymphocyte counts. No TTP relapse or SLE flare occurred during 24 months of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Our cases confirmed the efficacy and good follow-up outcomes of low-dose rituximab treatment (100 mg weekly for 4 weeks) for refractory SLE-TTP.

Nationwide claims database analysis of treatment patterns, costs and survival of Japanese patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

Limited data are available regarding treatment patterns, healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), treatment costs and clinical outcomes for patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) in Japan. This retrospective database study analyzed the Medical Data Vision database for DLBCL patients who received treatment during the identification period from October 1 2008 to December 31 2017. Among 6,965 eligible DLBCL patients, 5,541 patients (79.6%) received first-line (1L) rituximab (R)-based therapy, and then were gradually switched to chemotherapy without R in subsequent lines of therapy. In each treatment regimen, 1L treatment cost was the highest among all lines of therapy. The major cost drivers i.e. total direct medical costs until death or censoring across all regimens and lines of therapy were from the 1L regimen and inpatient costs. During the follow-up period, DLBCL patients who received a 1L R-CHOP regimen achieved the highest survival rate and longest time-to-next-treatment, with a relatively low mean treatment cost due to lower inpatient healthcare resource utilization and fewer lines of therapy compared to other 1L regimens. Our retrospective analysis of clinical practices in Japanese DLBCL patients demonstrated that 1L treatment and inpatient costs were major cost contributors and that the use of 1L R-CHOP was associated with better clinical outcomes at a relatively low mean treatment cost.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment regimens with obinutuzumab plus chemotherapy in Japan for untreated follicular lymphoma patients.

AIMS: Obinutuzumab (GA101; G) is a new treatment for follicular lymphoma (FL) that is anticipated to have greater efficacy than the current treatment, rituximab (R). The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of G plus chemotherapy (G + Chemo) against that of R plus chemotherapy (R + Chemo) for patients in Japan with previously untreated FL. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We localized a previously reported cost-effectiveness model using the Japanese cost data. For estimating costs adapted in the model, FL patients treated with R were identified from Japanese hospital-based claims database and classified into three treatment regimen groups according to chemotherapies used with R: CHOP, CVP, and bendamustine (B). Based on services per patient and cost items, parameters determining the cost amounts were derived using a multivariate generalized linear mixed model to estimate the direct medical costs for each treatment regimen group for G and R. For the utility, same values in the previous model were used. Lifetime cost and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) were estimated under the payer's perspective. RESULTS: The calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in million JPY per QALY for G-CHOP vs. R-CHOP, G-CVP vs. R-CVP, and G-B vs. R-B were 5.4, 4.3, and 4.8, respectively. ICERs were lower than 7.5 million JPY per QALY, which is the cost-effectiveness threshold for cancer treatments, and showed that G + Chemo is a cost-effective treatment regimen for Japanese patients with previously untreated FL. Lifetime direct medical costs were lowest in the R-B group because hospitalization costs that accounted for most of the total cost were lowest in this group. Limitations and conclusions: The cost-effectiveness of G + Chemo is acceptable in Japan. Differences in the direct medical costs among treatment regimen groups were mostly due to hospitalization costs. This is probably because many Japanese hematologists choose inpatient treatments over outpatient treatments in CHOP-based induction therapy.

Lenalidomide plus rituximab Vs rituximab alone in relapsed or refractory indolent lymphoma: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of lenalidomide plus rituximab vs rituximab alone in patients with relapsed or refractory indolent lymphoma. METHODS: A Markov decision model was established to carry out the cost-effectiveness analysis. Three discrete health states, progression-free survival (PFS), progressive disease (PD), and death, were included. Cycle length was set at 1 month, and utility scores were derived from previously published literature. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was defined as the primary endpoint, and the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was set at $29,306.43 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Both cost and effectiveness were determined using a 3% annual discount rate. Furthermore, one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to check the robustness of the model. RESULTS: Lenalidomide plus rituximab gained 6.08 QALYs at a cost of $120,979.62 while rituximab alone gained 4.84 QALYs at a cost of $48,052.11. The ICER of lenalidomide plus rituximab vs rituximab alone was $58,812.51/QALY. The parameters most significantly influenced the model were the utility values for the PFS state, the duration of the PFS state in the lenalidomide plus rituximab group, and the cost of lenalidomide. The probability of lenalidomide plus rituximab or rituximab alone being the most cost-effective option was 0% and 100%, respectively, at a WTP threshold of $29,306.43/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Lenalidomide plus rituximab is not a cost-effective strategy compared with rituximab monotherapy for relapsed or refractory indolent lymphoma from a Chinese societal perspective.

Real-World Treatment Patterns, Adverse Events, Resource Use, and Costs Among Commercially Insured, Younger Patients with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia in the USA: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: Amidst a changing treatment landscape, real-world evidence on the burden of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is limited. The purpose of this study was to describe treatment patterns, adverse events (AEs), and economic burden among treated patients with CLL. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted with IQVIA PharMetrics® Plus. Patients at least 18 years old with CLL treatment between November 1, 2013 and May 31, 2018 were identified; index date was first observed CLL treatment. Patients had at least one CLL diagnosis pre-index and a second diagnosis anytime during the study period, at least 1-year pre- and at least 30-day post-index continuous enrollment and no pre-index CLL treatment. Analyses focused on patients receiving one of the four most common regimens observed. Outcomes included treatment patterns, frequency of incident AEs, and healthcare resource use and costs. Multivariable logistic regression and generalized linear modelling were used to evaluate risk of hospitalization and all-cause costs per patient per month (PPPM). RESULTS: A total of 1706 patients were included in the study (median [interquartile range] age 58 [55-62] years, 66% male, median Charlson Comorbidity Index 2 [2-3], median follow-up 16 [8-28] months). Common regimens, irrespective of treatment line, were bendamustine-rituximab (B-R, 27%), ibrutinib monotherapy (I, 27%), rituximab monotherapy (R, 19%), and fludarabine combined with cyclophosphamide and rituximab (FCR, 16%); 59% had at least one incident AE (B-R, 62%; I, 60%; R, 25%; FCR, 79%). Mean total all-cause healthcare cost over follow-up was $13,858 ± 14,626 PPPM. Increased number of AEs was associated with increased odds of hospitalization (odds ratio = 2.9; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.5-3.4) and increased mean cost PPPM (cost ratio = 1.2; 95% CI 1.1-1.2). CONCLUSION: This study highlights the treatment toxicity and associated economic burden among patients with CLL in the USA. As novel therapies are increasingly used, further research examining outcomes will inform the risks, benefits, and value of novel agents to prescribers and patients.

Cost effectiveness of rituximab and mycophenolate mofetil for neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder in Thailand: Economic evaluation and budget impact analysis.

Neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) is an inflammatory condition of the central nervous system. The extent of disability depends on the severity of the disease and the number of relapses. Although azathioprine is currently the main treatment for patients with NMOSD in Thailand, patients often relapse during its use. Hence, it is argued that there are other drugs that would be more effective. The purpose of this study is to evaluate, from a societal perspective and from the economic impact on Thailand's healthcare system, the cost utility of treatment with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and rituximab in patients resistant to azathioprine. The Markov model with a one-year cycle length was applied to predict the health and cost outcomes in patients with NMOSD over a lifetime. The results showed that rituximab exhibited the highest quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gains among all the options. Among the rituximab-based treatments, the administration of a rituximab biosimilar with CD27+ memory B cell monitoring proved to be the most cost-effective option. At the willingness-to-pay threshold of 160,000 Thai baht (THB), or 5,289 US dollar (USD), per QALY gained, the treatment exhibited the highest probability of being cost effective (48%). A sensitivity analysis based on the adjusted price of a generic MMF determined that the treatment was cost effective, exhibiting an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of -164,653 THB (-5,443 USD) and a 32% probability of being cost effective. The calculated budget impact of treating patients resistant to conventional therapy was 1-6 million THB (33,000-198,000 USD) for the first three years, while after the third year, the budget impact stabilized at 3-4 million THB (99,000-132,000 USD). These data indicate that, in Thailand, treatment of drug resistant NMOSD with a rituximab biosimilar with CD27+ memory B cell monitoring or treatment with a generic MMF would be cost effective and would result in a low budget impact. Therefore, the inclusion of both the rituximab biosimilar and a generic MMF in the National Drug List of Essential Medicine for the treatment of NMOSD may be appropriate.