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.

Microcosting Analysis of Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma Treatment in Malawi.

PURPOSE: To describe the cost of treating diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) in Malawi under the following circumstances: (1) palliation only, (2) first-line cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP), (3) salvage etoposide, ifosfamide, and cisplatin (EPIC), and (4) salvage gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (GEMOX). METHODS: We conducted a microcosting analysis from the health system perspective in the context of a prospective cohort study at a national teaching hospital in Lilongwe, Malawi. Clinical outcomes data were derived from previously published literature from the cohort. Cost data were collected for treatment and 2-year follow-up, reflecting costs incurred by the research institution or referral hospital for goods and services. Costs were collected in Malawian kwacha, inflated and converted to 2017 US dollars. RESULTS: On a per-patient basis, palliative care alone cost $728 per person. Total costs for first-line treatment with CHOP chemotherapy was $1,844, of which chemotherapy drugs made up 15%. Separate salvage EPIC and GEMOX cost $2,597 and $3,176, respectively. Chemotherapy drugs accounted for 30% of EPIC and 47% of GEMOX. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is among the first published efforts to characterize detailed costs of cancer treatment in sub-Saharan Africa. The per-patient cost of first-line treatment of DLBCL in Malawi is low relative to high-income countries, suggesting that investments in fixed-duration, curative-intent DLBCL treatment may be attractive in sub-Saharan Africa. Salvage treatment of relapsed/refractory DLBCL costs much more than first-line therapy. Formal cost-effectiveness modeling for CHOP and salvage treatment in the Malawian and other low-resource settings is needed to inform decision makers about optimal use of resources for cancer treatment.