Budget Impact of Introducing Fixed-Duration Mosunetuzumab for the Treatment of Relapsed or Refractory Follicular Lymphoma After Two or More Lines of Systemic Therapy in the USA.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the budget impact of introducing fixed-duration mosunetuzumab as a treatment option for adult patients with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma after at least two prior systemic therapies and to estimate the total cumulative costs per patient in the USA. METHODS: A 3-year budget impact model was developed for a hypothetical 1-million-member cohort enrolled in a mixed commercial/Medicare health plan. Comparators were: axicabtagene ciloleucel, tisagenlecleucel, tazemetostat, rituximab plus lenalidomide, copanlisib, and older therapies (rituximab or obinutuzumab ± chemotherapy). Costs per patient comprised treatment-associated costs including the drug, its administration, adverse events, and routine care. Dosing and safety data were ascertained from respective package inserts and clinical trial data. Drug costs (March 2023) were estimated based on the average wholesale acquisition cost reported in AnalySource®, and all other costs were based on published sources and inflated to 2022 US dollars. Market shares were obtained from Genentech internal projections and expert opinion. Budget impact outcomes were presented on a per-member per-month basis. RESULTS: Compared with a scenario without mosunetuzumab, its introduction over 3 years resulted in a budget increase of $69,812 (1% increase) and an average per-member per-month budget impact of $0.0019. Among the newer therapies, mosunetuzumab had the second-lowest cumulative per patient cost (mosunetuzumab = $202,039; axicabtagene ciloleucel = $505,845; tisagenlecleucel = $476,293; rituximab plus lenalidomide = $263,520; tazemetostat = $250,665; copanlisib = $127,293) and drug costs, and its introduction only increased total drug costs by 0.1%. By year 3, the cumulative difference in the per patient cost with mosunetuzumab was -$303,805 versus axicabtagene ciloleucel, -$274,254 versus tisagenlecleucel, -$61,481 versus rituximab plus lenalidomide, -$48,625 versus tazemetostat, and $74,747 versus copanlisib. Older therapies were less costly with 3-year cumulative costs that ranged from $36,512 to $147,885. CONCLUSIONS: Over 3 years, the estimated cumulative per patient cost of mosunetuzumab is lower than most available newer therapies, resulting in a small increase in the budget after its formulary adoption for the treatment of relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma.

Cost-effectiveness of obinutuzumab plus bendamustine in Chinese patients with relapse and refractory follicular lymphoma.

A decision analytic model was constructed to assess the cost-effectiveness of obinutuzumab plus bendamustine followed by obinutuzumab maintenance therapy (O-B-O) in Chinese patients with relapsed and refractory follicular lymphoma (rrFL). O-B-O was associated with a dominant or more favorable cost-effectiveness than the conventional therapies. Survival outcomes, quality of life of progression-free survival, and subsequent treatment costs for progressive disease were the main drivers of the cost-effectiveness of O-B-O. The cost-effectiveness proportions of O-B-O relative to conventional therapies under the recommended cost-effectiveness threshold ranged from 61.0% to 99.9%. Thus, O-B-O was highly cost-effective for treating patients with rrFL in China compared with conventional therapies.

Estimating the Burden of Illness of Relapsed Follicular Lymphoma and Marginal Zone Lymphoma in Ontario, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with advanced follicular lymphoma (FL) and marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) relapse after first-line chemotherapy. OBJECTIVE: To examine healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and cost, treatment patterns, progression, and survival of patients with FL and MZL who relapse after first-line treatment, in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: A retrospective, administrative data study identified patients with relapsed FL and MZL (1 January 2005-31 December 2018). Patients were followed for up to three years post relapse to assess HCRU, healthcare costs, time to next treatment (TTNT), and overall survival (OS), stratified by first- and second-line treatment. RESULTS: The study identified 285 FL and 68 MZL cases who relapsed after first-line treatment. Average duration of first-line treatment was 12.4 and 13.4 months for FL and MZL patients, respectively. Drug (35.9%) and cancer clinic costs (28.1%) were major contributors to higher costs in year 1. Three-year OS was 83.9% after FL and 74.2% after MZL relapse. No statistically significant differences were observed in TTNT and OS between patients with FL who received R-CHOP/R-CVP/BR in the first line only versus both the first- and second- line. A total of 31% of FL and 34% of MZL patients progressed to third-line treatment within three years of initial relapse. CONCLUSION: Relapsing and remitting nature of FL and MZL in a subset of patients results in substantial burden to patients and the healthcare system.

Yttrium-90 Ibritumomab Tiuxetan is Cost-Effective Compared to Bendamustine + Rituximab in Low-grade Lymphomas.

BACKGROUND: Yttrium-90 ibritumomab tiuxetan [(90)Y-IT] is a CD20-targeted radio-immunotherapeutic agent. It has shown an excellent therapeutic activity with high tolerability against previously untreated follicular lymphoma (FL) and marginal zone B cell lymphoma (MZL). It is an attractive therapeutic option as the treatment schedule is short and convenient. The aim of our study is to determine the cost-effectiveness of (90)Y-IT in comparison to the standard-of-care bendamustine + rituximab (BR) in the first-line treatment of low-grade FL (LG-FL) and MZL in the real world. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We included all patients who were treated with standard-dose (90)Y-IT for previously untreated LG-FL and MZL at the Mayo Clinic Cancer Center (N = 51). A comparator arm with a historical cohort of previously untreated LG-FL and MZL patients who received BR was used (N = 92). RESULTS: Inverse propensity weighting was utilized to balance the 2 study arms. There were no differences in terms of overall response rate (100% vs. 98%, P = .18), complete response rate (94% vs. 95%, P = .91), or 5 years progression-free survival (76% vs. 75%, P = .63) between patients who received (90)Y-IT and BR, respectively. Within the first year, patients who received (90)Y-IT required an average of 4.5 fewer oncology clinic visits (P < .001), an average of 10 fewer days of therapeutic use (P < .001), and 40% less use of growth factors (P < .001) as compared to the BR group. The direct therapeutic cost of (90)Y-IT treatment was 54% less than that of 6 cycles of BR. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that (90) Y-IT is more cost-effective than BR and is a viable alternative in up-front management of LG-FL and MZL.

Cost-effectiveness of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy in adults with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma.

Follicular lymphoma (FL) is traditionally considered treatable but incurable. In March 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration approved the use of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy in patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) FL after ≥2 lines of therapy. Priced at $373 000, CAR T-cell therapy is potentially curative, and its cost-effectiveness compared with other modern R/R FL treatment strategies is unknown. We developed a Markov model to assess the cost-effectiveness of third-line CAR T-cell vs standard of care (SOC) therapies in adults with R/R FL. We estimated progression rates for patients receiving CAR T-cell and SOC therapies from the ZUMA-5 trial and the LEO CReWE study, respectively. We calculated costs, discounted life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of CAR T-cell vs SOC therapies with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY. Our analysis was conducted from a US payer's perspective over a lifetime horizon. In our base-case model, the cost of the CAR T-cell strategy was $731 682 compared with $458 490 for SOC therapies. However, CAR T-cell therapy was associated with incremental clinical benefit of 1.50 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of $182 127 per QALY. Our model was most sensitive to the utilities associated with CAR T-cell therapy remission and third-line SOC therapies and to the total upfront CAR T-cell therapy cost. Under current pricing, CAR T-cell therapy is unlikely to be cost-effective in unselected patients with FL in the third-line setting. Both randomized clinical trials and longer term clinical follow-up can help clarify the benefits of CAR T-cell therapy and optimal sequencing in patients with FL.

Relevance of Bone Marrow Biopsies for Response Assessment in US National Cancer Institute National Clinical Trials Network Follicular Lymphoma Clinical Trials.

PURPOSE: Bone marrow biopsies (BMB) are performed before/after therapy to confirm complete response (CR) in patients with lymphoma on clinical trials. We sought to establish whether BMB add value in assessing response or predict progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) outcomes in follicular lymphoma (FL) subjects in a large, multicenter, multitrial cohort. METHODS: Data were pooled from seven trials of 580 subjects with previously untreated FL through Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology (Alliance) and SWOG Cancer Research Network (SWOG) completing enrollment from 2008 to 2016. RESULTS: Only 5/580 (0.9%) had positive baseline BMB, CR on imaging, and subsequent positive BMB (P < .0001). Therefore, BMB were irrelevant to response in 99% of subjects. A sensitivity analysis of 385 FL subjects treated on an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group study was included. In the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group cohort, 5/385 (1.3%) had BMB that affected response assessment. Since some subjects do not undergo confirmatory BMB, we performed a landmark survival analysis from first radiologic CR with data from 580 subjects from Alliance and SWOG. Of subjects with CR on imaging (n = 187), PFS and OS were not significantly different among those with negative BMB to confirm CR (n = 47) versus those without repeat BMB (n = 140; PFS: adjusted hazard ratio, 1.10, 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.94, log-rank P = .686; OS: hazard ratio, 0.59, 95% CI, 0.23 to 1.53, log-rank P = .276). CONCLUSION: We conclude that BMB add little value to response assessment in subjects with FL treated on clinical trials and we recommend eliminating BMB from clinical trial requirements. BMB should also be removed from diagnostic guidelines for FL except in scenarios in which it may change management including confirmation of limited stage and assessment of cytopenias. This would reduce cost, patient discomfort, resource utilization, and potentially remove a barrier to trial enrollment.

'Fast but not so Furious': Short observation time after subcutaneous Daratumumab administration is both a safe and cost-effective strategy.

BACKGROUND: Daratumumab, an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, is a key component in the treatment paradigms of multiple myeloma and AL amyloidosis in both the newly diagnosed and relapsed and/or refractory setting. Intravenous (IV) daratumumab administration requires extended infusion times and is associated with higher rates of infusion related reactions (IRRs) when compared to the subcutaneous (SC) formulation. We report real world safety outcomes and infusion chair time savings associated with SC administration in daratumumab naïve patients. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed medical records at our institution for the incidence and severity of IRRs following differing observation periods post SC daratumumab administration. Infusion chair time was calculated to quantify chair time savings with SC administration. RESULTS: Sixty-six daratumumab naïve patients were included. Nine percent of patients developed IRRs with SC daratumumab with all reactions occurring within six hours of the first dose. All reactions were grade ≤ 2 in severity and were reversible with supportive care. Over the 18 month study period, a total of 904 SC doses were administered, amounting to a potential 1785 hours of infusion chair time savings when compared to IV administration. CONCLUSION: SC daratumumab may be given safely with a short initial observation period and without observation for subsequent doses, resulting in reduced infusion chair time as well as administration related cost and resources.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of lenalidomide plus rituximab versus rituximab monotherapy in patients with previously treated follicular lymphoma: a societal view.

INTRODUCTION: Efficacy of lenalidomide plus rituximab (R-LEN) compared to rituximab monotherapy (R-mono) for patients with previously treated follicular lymphoma (FL) was investigated in AUGMENT (NCT01938001). Our aim was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of R-LEN versus R-mono in this setting from a Dutch perspective. AREAS COVERED: Cost-effectiveness was assessed through a partitioned survival model from three perspectives (i.e. societal, healthcare, and societal, including future non-medical costs). Patient-level data from AUGMENT informed effectiveness parameters (i.e. long-term survival) and health state utilities. Resource use and prices were based on AUGMENT and the literature. Clinical experts validated efficacy input parameters and results. Uncertainty was explored through sensitivity and scenario analyses. EXPERT OPINION: R-LEN resulted in 1.7 incremental discounted quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Total incremental discounted costs were 67,161 EUR from a societal perspective. In conclusion, R-LEN was cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of 50,000 EUR/QALY in the base-case analyses(incremental cost-effectiveness ratio = 40,493 EUR/QALY). Scenario and sensitivity analyses indicated some level of uncertainty regarding this conclusion, depending on the chosen WTP-threshold and perspective.

Lifetime Costs for Treated Follicular Lymphoma Patients in the US.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to estimate the lifetime costs of patients receiving treatment for follicular lymphoma (FL) in the United States. METHODS: A Markov model was programmed in heRo3 with a 6-month cycle length, 35-year time horizon (lifetime projection), and health states for line of treatment, response, receipt of maintenance therapy among responders, transformation to diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), development of second primary malignancy (SPM), and death. The model was used to estimate the expected lifetime costs of FL (in 2019 USD), including costs of drug acquisition and administration, transplant procedures, radiotherapy, adverse events, follow-up, DLBCL, SPM, end-of-life care, and indirect costs. Model inputs were based on published sources. RESULTS: In the US, patients with FL receiving treatment have a life expectancy of approximately 14.5 years from initiation of treatment and expected lifetime direct and indirect costs of US$515,884. Costs of drugs for induction therapy represent the largest expenditure (US$233,174), followed by maintenance therapy costs (US$88,971) and terminal care costs (US$57,065). Despite the relatively advanced age of these patients, indirect costs (due to patient morbidity and mortality and caregiver lost work time) represent a substantial share of total costs (US$40,280). Treated FL patients spend approximately 6.9 years in the health states associated with first-line therapy. Approximately 66 and 46% continue to second- and third-line therapies, respectively. The mean (95% credible interval) of expected lifetime costs based on the probabilistic sensitivity analyses was US$559,202 (421,997-762,553). CONCLUSIONS: In the US, the expected lifetime costs of care for FL patients who receive treatment is high. The results highlight the potential economic benefits that might be achieved by treatments for FL that prevent or delay disease progression.

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.

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).

Real-World Assessment of Patient Care and Practice Efficiency With the Introduction of Subcutaneous Rituximab.

INTRODUCTION: A subcutaneous (SC) formulation of the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, rituximab (Rituxan), is approved in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), follicular lymphoma (FL), and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Rituximab-SC (R-SC) has been associated with time and clinic resource savings vs the original intravenous formulation (R-IV). Insight into the resource implications of widening R-SC adoption in a US oncology setting is needed. METHODS: A single-institution, retrospective observational analysis was conducted in adult patients with DLBCL, FL, or CLL. The primary outcome measure was chair occupancy time (difference between patient room-in and room-out times). Prescribing patterns were a secondary outcome. RESULTS: Overall, 1190 patients were analyzed (treatment time frame: pre-R-SC adoption: n = 490 [41%], pre- and post R-SC adoption: n = 189 [16%], post R-SC adoption: n = 511 [43%]). Of the patients in the post-R-SC period, 374 (73%) received R-IV, 52 (10%) received R-IV and R-SC, and 85 (17%) received R-SC. When administered, R-SC reduced combination therapy chair time vs R-IV by a mean 37% (93.2 minutes; P < .001). Monotherapy (any route) reduced chair time vs combination by a mean 35.2 minutes (P < .001), with a further 40.2-minute reduction with R-SC (P < .001), a 62% (133.4-minute) total chair time savings vs R-IV. Doctors were more likely to prescribe R-SC to patients with FL than DLBCL. CONCLUSIONS: R-SC is associated with significantly reduced chair time vs R-IV in a US oncology setting. Widespread adoption would be expected to improve practice efficiency and patient access to care, and to reduce health care resource burden.

Low initial trough concentration of rituximab is associated with unsatisfactory response of first-line R-CHOP treatment in patients with follicular lymphoma with grade 1/2.

For follicular lymphoma (FL) with grade 1/2, the complete response (CR) rate of the first-line R-CHOP treatment was significantly low. In this study, we assessed the rationality of the administration of rituximab for FL patients with grade 1/2 based on concentration-response relationship analyses. Thus, we conducted a prospective pharmacokinetic (PK) study in 68 FL patients with grades 1-3 treated with R-CHOP at 21-day intervals. Plasma rituximab concentrations were quantified using ELISA and the population PK modeling was established with Phoenix® NLMETM. The first cycle trough concentration (C1-trough) of rituximab was a significant independent risk factor for achieving CR in matched-pair logistic regression analysis, rather than the concentrations in later cycles; the recommendatory minimum optimal C1-trough was 13.60 µg/mL. Patients with grade 1/2 had significantly lower C1-trough compared with grade 3 (12.21 µg/mL vs. 23.45 µg/mL, P < 0.001), only 30% patients with grade 1/2 could reach 13.60 µg/mL, compared with 91.67% in patients with grade 3, which was in accord with its unsatisfactory CR rates (43.33% vs. 76.32%). The stage indicating the tumor burden (the target) was a crucial influence factor for C1-trough, accounting for 40.70% of its variability, 70% patients with grade 1/2 were stage IV in this study, since the systemic therapy only started at the disseminated disease stage. The initial dose of 1800 mg was recommended by Monte Carlo simulation for patients with grade 1/2. In summary, low C1-trough accounted for low-grade FL's unsatisfactory CR rate, designing the first dosage of rituximab should be a very important component of individualized therapy for FL.

Comparative effectiveness study of chemotherapy in follicular lymphoma patients in the rituximab era: a Japanese claims database study.

Aim: To evaluate comparative effectiveness of rituximub (R)-based versus non-R-based therapies for follicular lymphoma patients in Japan, where limited studies have been reported. Materials & methods: Patients who received R-based index regimens were propensity score matched to those who did not receive R, based on patient baseline attributes and clinical characteristics using Japanese retrospective claims database to assess clinical and economic outcomes. Results & conclusion: A total of 1947 patients remained in the overall follicular lymphoma cohorts: 1294 receiving an R-based and 653 a non-R-based regimen. Patients on R-based therapy underwent fewer hospitalizations and had a shorter length of stay, but had higher costs during the first year of intensive R-based therapy. Improved clinical outcomes were associated with patients who were younger, female and chose R-based regimens in first index line.

Lenalidomide with Rituximab for Previously Treated Follicular Lymphoma and Marginal Zone Lymphoma: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Celgene) of lenalidomide (Revlimid®), as part of the Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process, to submit evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lenalidomide in combination with rituximab (MabThera®), together referred to as R2, for the treatment of adults with treated follicular lymphoma (FL) or marginal zone lymphoma (MZL). Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, in collaboration with Maastricht University Medical Centre+, was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper summarises the company submission (CS), presents the ERG's critical review on the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence in the CS, highlights the key methodological considerations, and describes the development of the NICE guidance by the Appraisal Committee. The CS included one relevant study, for the comparison of R2 versus rituximab monotherapy (R-mono): the AUGMENT trial. In addition, the company performed an unanchored indirect comparison of R2 versus rituximab combined with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone (R-CHOP) and rituximab combined with cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisolone (R-CVP), using data for R2 from the AUGMENT trial and pooled data for R-CHOP/R-CVP from the Haematological Malignancy Research Network (HMRN) database. During the STA process, the company provided an addendum containing evidence on only the FL population, in line with the marketing authorisation obtained at that time, which did not include MZL. The probabilistic incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) presented by the company were £27,768 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained for R2 versus R-CHOP, £41,602 per QALY gained for R2 versus R-CVP, and £23,412 per QALY gained for R2 versus R-mono. The ERG's concerns included the validity of the unanchored comparison, the unavailability of a state transition model to verify the outcomes of the partitioned survival model, substantial uncertainty in survival curves, and potential over-estimation of utility values. The revised ERG base case resulted in ICERs ranging from £16,874 to £44,888 per QALY gained for R2 versus R-CHOP, from £23,135 to £59,810 per QALY gained for R2 versus R-CVP, and from £18,779 to £27,156 per QALY gained for R2 versus R-mono. Substantial uncertainty remained around these ranges. NICE recommended R2 within its marketing authorisation, as an option for previously treated FL (grade 1-3A) in adults, contingent on the company providing lenalidomide according to the commercial arrangement.

Biosimilars in oncology: Effects on economy and therapeutic innovations.

AIM: The introduction of new and innovative treatment options for cancer patients is accompanied by a tremendous increase in healthcare costs. Consequently, new financing approaches are strongly needed to reduce the burden on the healthcare system. The introduction of biosimilars - biological drugs containing the active substance of an already approved reference biological drug - can potentially relieve the burden on healthcare systems. Calculating the costs for three frequently used biosimilars, we simulated the health-economic impact of biosimilars in the real world for the German healthcare system. METHODS: Based on available health-economic analyses, the actual prescription and cost containment potential of biosimilars compared to the originator were calculated exemplarily for the cost-intensive therapies trastuzumab in breast cancer, rituximab in follicular lymphoma and G-CSF in supportive care. Incidence calculations were based e.g. on data from the Robert-Koch-Institution, Munich Cancer Registry, and quality indicators of certified centres. Cost calculation was based on Lauer-Taxe® (official reference for pharmaceutical price information). RESULTS: The application of biosimilars would generate potential annual savings for the chosen examples of up to 4.9 Mio EUR for rituximab in follicular lymphoma, 40.5 Mio EUR for filgrastim, 56.4 Mio EUR for pegfilgrastim, and between 95.9 and 120.5 Mio EUR for trastuzumab. CONCLUSIONS: The consequent use of biosimilars allows a considerable reduction of overall treatment costs, especially for cost-intensive long-term maintenance treatments and therapies with high incidences. If the option of biosimilar usage is fully exploited, enormous resources could be released within the healthcare system in order to offset financing new innovative therapies.

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.

High serum levels of IL-2R, IL-6, and TNF-α are associated with higher tumor burden and poorer outcome of follicular lymphoma patients in the rituximab era.

The clinical behavior of FL patients is heterogeneous. The levels of sIL-2R have been correlated with tumor burden and outcome in FL. However, the impact of IL-6 and TNF-α in this disease is unclear. We studied 253 patients diagnosed with grade 1-3a FL between 2002 and 2018, with available information on serum levels of sIL-2R, IL-6, and TNF-α at diagnosis. Patients with cytokine levels above the cutoff had features of a higher tumor burden and higher-risk disease. Levels of any of the studied cytokines above the cutoff and a higher number of cytokines above the cutoff impacted on a shorter PFS and OS. TNF-α levels were an independent predictor of a poorer PFS. No differences were observed in the risk of histological transformation or second malignancies. The determination of cytokine levels in FL patients is feasible in clinical practice, and elevated levels are associated with a higher tumor burden and poorer survival.