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 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.

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.

The medical cost and outcome of desensitization protocol in kidney transplantation recipients with high immunological risks.

BACKGROUND: Kidney transplantation is a well-established alternative in renal replacement therapy. Compared with hemodialysis, low-immunological-risk kidney transplantation can reduce the medical treatment costs associated with end-stage renal disease. However, there are few reports on whether high-immunological-risk kidney transplantation reduces the financial burden on governments. We investigated the medical costs of high-immunological-risk kidney transplantation in comparison with the cost of hemodialysis in Japan. METHODS: We compared the medical costs of high-immunological-risk kidney transplantation with those of hemodialysis. 15 patients who underwent crossmatch-positive and/or donor-specific antibody-positive kidney transplantations between 2020 and 2021 were enrolled in this study. The patients received intravenous immunoglobulin, plasmapheresis, and rituximab as desensitizing therapy. RESULTS: Acute antibody-mediated rejection was detected in nine (60%) recipients, while there were no indications of graft function deterioration during the follow-up. For each patient, the transplant hospitalization cost was 38 428 ± 8789 USD. However, the cumulative costs were 59 758 ± 10 006 USD and 79 781 ± 16 366 USD, at 12 and 24 months, respectively. Compared with hemodialysis (34 286 USD per year), high-immunological-risk kidney transplantation tends to be expensive in the first year, but the cost is likely to be lower than that of hemodialysis after 3 years. CONCLUSIONS: Although kidney transplantation is initially expensive compared with hemodialysis, the medical cost becomes advantageous after 3 years even in kidney transplant recipients with high immunological risk.

The impact of marginalization on diffuse large B-cell lymphoma overall survival: a retrospective cohort study.

The aim of this study was to describe the impact of marginalization on DLBCL overall survival (OS) within the Canadian setting. We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study of adult patients with newly diagnosed DLBCL in Ontario between 1 January 2005 and 31 December 2017 receiving a rituximab-containing chemotherapy regimen with curative intent followed until 1 March 2020. Our primary exposure of interest was the Ontario Marginalization Index (ON-Marg). The primary outcome was 2-year OS, accounting for patient age, sex, cancer characteristics, comorbidity burden, and rural dwelling status. While two-year overall survival was inferior for individuals in the most deprived marginalization quintile (70.4% Q5 vs. 76.0% Q1), after adjustment for relevant covariates neither the composite ON-Marg nor any of its dimensions had a significant effect. Within the Canadian context, among patients who receive chemotherapy, marginalization may not have a significant association with overall survival when accounting for key patient covariates, lending support for preserved outcomes.

Treatment patterns and costs among US patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma not treated with 2L stem cell transplantation.

Aim: To assess treatment patterns, healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), and costs for patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) who did not receive stem cell transplantation in second-line. Patients & methods: An administrative MarketScan® database study to assess DLBCL claims from 01/01/2009-30/09/2020. Results: Most patients (n = 750) received rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone in first-line (86.8%) and rituximab (39.5%) or bendamustine ± rituximab ± other (16.3%) in second-line. Over half were hospitalized (mean duration: 16.5 (standard deviation [SD]: 25.8) days per patient per year). Mean medical/pharmacy costs were US$141,532 per patient per year (SD: $189,579), driven by DLBCL-related claims. Conclusion: Healthcare resource utilization and costs for DLBCL-related claims were due to hospitalizations and outpatient visits. Novel therapies to reduce clinical and economic burdens are needed.

Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside the inter-B-NHL ritux 2010 trial: rituximab in children and adolescents with B cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

OBJECTIVES: The randomized controlled trial Inter-B-NHL ritux 2010 showed overall survival (OS) benefit and event-free survival (EFS) benefit with the addition of rituximab to standard Lymphomes Malins B (LMB) chemotherapy in children and adolescents with high-risk, mature B cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Our aim was to assess the cost-effectiveness of rituximab-chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in the French setting. METHODS: We used a decision-analytic semi-Markov model with four health states and 1-month cycles. Resource use was prospectively collected in the Inter-B-NHL ritux 2010 trial (NCT01516580). Transition probabilities were assessed from patient-level data from the trial (n = 328). In the base case analysis, direct medical costs from the French National Insurance Scheme and life-years (LYs) were computed in both arms over a 3-year time horizon. Incremental net monetary benefit and cost-effectiveness acceptability curve were computed through a probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Deterministic sensitivity analysis and several sensitivity analyses on key assumptions were also conducted, including one exploratory analysis with quality-adjusted life years as the health outcome. RESULTS: OS and EFS benefits shown in the Inter-B-NHL ritux 2010 trial translated into the model by rituximab-chemotherapy being the most effective and also the least expensive strategy over the chemotherapy strategy. The mean difference in LYs between arms was 0.13 [95% CI 0.02; 0.25], and the mean cost difference € - 3 710 [95% CI € - 17,877; € 10,525] in favor of rituximab-chemotherapy group. For a € 50,000 per LY willingness-to-pay threshold, the probability of the rituximab-chemotherapy strategy being cost-effective was 91.1%. All sensitivity analyses confirmed these findings. CONCLUSION: Adding rituximab to LMB chemotherapy in children and adolescents with high-risk mature B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma is highly cost-effective in France. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01516580.

The comparison of safety and cost between reference drug of rituximab and its biosimilar Riximyo in lymphoproliferative disorders and other hematological diseases. Single center experience.

Rituximab, anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, has broad clinical application. The aim of this study is to compare the safety and cost of the original reference rituximab (MabThera) and its biosimilar (Riximyo). This retrospective analysis of 262 patients receiving Riximyo in the Department of Hematology of Wroclaw Medical University in Poland from the period of 1 October 2020 to 21 June 2021 focused on infusion-related reactions (IRRs), which occurred in 4,96% of patients (N = 13). 109 patients (41,6%) had previously been treated with the reference drug and 2 IRRs were reported after switching therapy. During the study period, after biosimilar introduction, the cost of rituximab decreased by 41%. Rixmyo while maintaining similar safety profile is much more cost-effective.

Real-world treatment patterns, survival, health resource use and costs among Medicare beneficiaries with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

Aim: To examine real-world treatment patterns, survival, healthcare resource use and costs in elderly Medicare beneficiaries with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Methods: 11,880 Medicare patients aged ≥66 years with DLBCL between 1 October 2015 and 31 December 2018 were followed for ≥12 months after initiating front-line treatment. Results: Two-thirds (61.2%) of the patients received standard-of-care R-CHOP as first-line treatment. Hospitalization was common (57%) in the 12-months after initiation of 1L treatment; the mean DLCBL-related total costs were US$84,416 during the same period. Over a median follow-up of 2.1 years, 17.8% received at least 2L treatment. Overall survival was lower among later lines of treatment (median overall survival from initiation of 1L: not reached; 2L: 19.9 months; 3L: 9.8 months; 4L: 5.5 months). Conclusion: A large unmet need exists for more efficacious and well-tolerated therapies for older adults with DLBCL.

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most common form of Non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and it becomes more common with age. While researchers continue to develop newer, more effective treatments for DLBCL, it is important to understand how patients use existing treatments and the associated costs, particularly among the elderly. In our real-world analysis of nearly 12,000 older patients with DLBCL, we found high rates of hospitalization and hospice use, short length of life in later lines of therapy and substantial healthcare costs. Our findings suggest a large current unmet need for more effective and well-tolerated therapies for older adults with DLBCL in both the front-line and relapse/refractory settings.

Adding a Gene Expression Profile Test to Aid Differential Diagnosis and Treatment in Aggressive Large B-Cell Lymphoma: An Early Exploratory Economic Evaluation.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Adding gene expression profiles (GEPs) to the current diagnostic work-up of aggressive large B-cell lymphomas may lead to the reclassification of patients, treatment changes and improved outcomes. A GEP test is in development using TempO-Seq® technology to distinguish Burkitt lymphoma (BL) and primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL) from diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), and to classify patients with DLBLC and to predict the benefit of (e.g.) adding bortezomib to R-CHOP therapy (RB-CHOP). This study aims to estimate the potential impact of a GEP test on costs and health outcomes to inform pricing and evidence generation strategies. METHODS: Three decision models were developed comparing diagnostic strategies with and without GEP signatures over a lifetime horizon using a UK health and social care perspective. Inputs were taken from a recent clinical trial, literature and expert opinion. We estimated the maximum price of the test using a threshold of Great Britain Pound (GBP) 30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: The estimated maximum threshold price for a combined test to be cost effective is GBP 15,352. At base-case values, the BL signature delivers QALY gains of 0.054 at an additional cost of GBP 275. This results in a net monetary benefit at a threshold of GBP 30,000 per QALY of GBP 1345. For PMBCL, the QALY gain was 0.0011 at a cost saving of GBP 406 and the net monetary benefit was GBP 437. The hazard ratio for the impact of treating BL less intensively must be at least 1.2 for a positive net monetary benefit. For identifying patients with the DLBCL subtype responsive to bortezomib, QALY gain was 0.2465 at a cost saving of GBP 6175, resulting in a net monetary benefit of GBP 13,570. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis using 1000 simulations, a testing strategy was superior to a treat all with R-CHOP strategy in 81% of the simulations and with a cost saving in 92% assuming a cost price of zero. CONCLUSIONS: Our estimates show that the combined test has a high probability of being cost effective. There is good quality evidence for the benefit of subtyping DLBCL but the evidence on the number of patients reclassified to or from BL and PMBCL and the impact of a more precise diagnosis and the cost of treatment is weak. The developers can use the price estimate to inform a return on investment calculations. Evidence will be required of how well the TempO-Seq® technology performs compared to the testing GEP technology used for subtyping in the recent clinical trial. For BL and PMBCL elements of the test, evidence would be required of the number of patients reclassified and improved costing information would be useful. The diagnostic and therapeutic environment in haematological malignancies is fast moving, which increases the risk for developers of diagnostic tests.

Potential Medicare and Medicaid Savings on Anti-CD20 Therapy for Multiple Sclerosis.

This cross-sectional study compares price data for ocrelizumab and rituximab to estimate the savings to Medicare and Medicaid if rituximab were used in the treatment of multiple sclerosis instead of the higher-priced ocrelizumab.

Prevalence, management, and new treatment modalities of EBV-DNA-emia and EBV-PTLD after allo-HCT: survey of Infectious Diseases Working Party EBMT.

The aim of this study was to determine the current approach of EBV-driven post-transplant complications in context of monitoring, diagnosis, prevalence and treatment in EBMT transplant centers. Routine serology testing in patient and donor before HCT is performed in 95.5% centers. Pretransplant EBV-DNA is routinely tested in all patients in 32.7% centers. Monitoring for EBV infection is feasible in 98.2% centers: including 66.7% centers using standardized PCR. Post-HCT regular monitoring is performed in all patients in 80.5% centers. Anti-EBV prophylaxis with rituximab is used in 12.4% centers. Frequency of csEBV-DNA-emia was 7.4% (adults: 6.2%, children: 12.6%). The PCR threshold used to start preemptive treatment was differentiated among centers. Frequency of EBV-PTLD was 1.6% (adults: 1.3%; children: 3.5%). First-line therapy of EBV-driven complications was rituximab and reduction of immunosuppressive therapy. The rate of failure of first-line preemptive treatment was 12.0%. EBV-specific viral-specific T-lymphocytes were available in 46.0% centers. A number of new experimental therapies were given in 28 patients with resistant/refractory PTLD. In conclusion, the prevalence of EBV-DNA-emia and EBV-PTLD over the period 2020-2021 decreased in comparison to historical data. New trends (routine pretransplant screening for EBV-DNA, wider access to VST, new experimental therapies) are being observed in management of EBV infection after allo-HCT.

A projected cost-utility analysis of avacopan for the treatment of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis in Spain.

BACKGROUND: Antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis (AAV) are rare autoimmune diseases characterized by inflammation of blood vessels. This study aimed to assess the cost-utility of avacopan in combination with rituximab (RTX) or cyclophosphamide (CYC) compared with glucocorticoids (GC) for the treatment of severe, active AAV in Spain. METHODS: A 9-state Markov model was designed to reflect the induction of remission and sustained remission of AAV over a lifetime horizon. Clinical data and utility values were mainly obtained from the ADVOCATE trial, and costs (€ 2022) were sourced from national databases. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) were evaluated. An annual discount rate of 3% was applied. Sensitivity analyses were performed to examine the robustness of the results. RESULTS: Avacopan yielded an increase in effectiveness (6.52 vs. 6.17 QALYs) and costs (€16,009) compared to GC, resulting in an ICUR of €45,638 per additional QALY gained. Avacopan was associated with a lower incidence of end-stage renal disease (ESRD), relapse and hospitalization-related adverse events. Sensitivity analyses suggested that the model outputs were robust and that the progression to ESRD was a driver of ICUR. CONCLUSIONS: Avacopan is a cost-effective option for patients with severe, active AAV compared to GC in Spain.

Cost-effectiveness of BTK inhibitors vs bendamustine and rituximab in chronic lymphocytic leukemia patients.

Background: We aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of bruton tyrosine kinase inhibors (BTKis) versus bendamustine-rituximab (R-bendamustine) as a first-line treatment for Chinese patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Methods: A partitioned survival model was constructed using TreeAge Pro 2022 software and transition probabilities were estimated from the reported survival probabilities using parametric survival modeling. One-way analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to explore the uncertainty of the modeling results. In addition, several scenario analyses were evaluated. Results: In comparison to R-bendamustine, zanubrutinib had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER; life years) and ICER (quality-adjusted life years) of US$12,173.38 and $17,983.40, respectively. While ibrutinib had a higher ICER relative to R-bendamustine. Conclusion: Zanubrutinib was cost-effective for patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia in China.

Ibrutinib versus bendamustine plus rituximab for first-line treatment of 65 or older patients with untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia without del(17p)/TP53 mutation in China: a lifetime economic research study.

BACKGROUND: The incidence and mortality rates of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) in China have recently increased. This study performed a long-term economic evaluation of the first-line treatment strategies ibrutinib (IB) or bendamustine (BE) plus rituximab (RI) for previously untreated older patients with CLL without the del(17p)/TP53 mutation in China. METHODS: Based on clinical data from large, randomized trials, a Markov model including four disease states (event-free survival, treatment failure, post-treatment failure, and death) was used to estimate the incremental costs per quality adjusted-life year (QALY) gained from the first-line IB strategy versus the BE plus RI strategy over a 10-year period. All costs were adjusted to 2022 values based on the Chinese Consumer Price Index, and all costs and health outcomes were discounted at an annual rate of 5%. Sensitivity analysis was performed to confirm the robustness of base-case results. RESULTS: Compared to the first-line BE plus RI strategy, first-line IB treatment achieved 1.17 additional QALYs, but was accompanied by $88,046.78 (estimated in 2022 US dollars) in decremental costs per patient over 10 years. Thus, first-line treatment with IB appeared to have absolute dominance compared to the BE plus RI strategy. Sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of these results. CONCLUSIONS: The first-line treatment with IB is absolutely cost-effective compared to the first-line BE plus RI treatment strategy for 65 or older patients with CLL without the del (17p)/TP53 mutation from the Chinese payer perspective. Therefore, it is strongly recommended that Chinese health authorities select the former strategy for these CLL patients.

Cost-Effectiveness of Ibrutinib as First-line Treatment for Older Patients With Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia in Iran.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ibrutinib versus chemoimmunotherapy for frontline treatment of elderly patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia in Iran. METHODS: We developed a partitioned survival model with 3 health states (progression-free survival, post-progression survival, and death) and a lifetime horizon. State memberships were determined by parametric survival analysis of the ALLIANCE (A041202) randomized controlled trial's results, comparing first-line ibrutinib with bendamustine plus rituximab. Direct medical costs were calculated from an Iranian health system perspective. Utility values were extracted from the literature to calculate the incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with each strategy. To address parameter uncertainties, deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were also performed. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, ibrutinib and bendamustine plus rituximab were associated with $3739.72 and $3991.20 costs per patient as the first-line treatment strategy, respectively. They resulted in an average of 2.86 and 2.66 QALYs per patient. Thus, first-line ibrutinib was associated with 0.20 incremental QALY and $251.48 cost-saving per patient and was therefore the "dominant" strategy. In deterministic sensitivity analysis, drug prices were the key drivers of model outputs. However, none of the resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratios exceeded the currently accepted threshold by the Iranian Food and Drug Administration ($1550 per QALY). In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, 63.3% of iterations were cost-saving and 77.4% were cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that ibrutinib as a first-line treatment appears to be the dominant strategy, compared with the standard of care, for unselected older adults with chronic lymphocytic leukemia in Iran.

Rituximab for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in Thailand: an economic evaluation and budget impact analysis.

BACKGROUND: Multiple sclerosis is an inflammatory demyelination process in the central nervous system (CNS) causing neurological disability and poor quality of life. Currently, Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved disease-modifying therapy is costly, and most patients with multiple sclerosis are ineligible for treatment in Thailand as previous studies have challenged its cost-effectiveness. Off-label use of rituximab is inexpensive and highly effective in treating multiple sclerosis, but evidence of its cost-effectiveness in Thailand is yet to be collected. METHODS: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-utility and budget impact of rituximab for multiple sclerosis treatment compared with best supportive care, the standard practice in Thailand to treat the disease. A Markov model with a one-month cycle length and lifetime horizon was applied to compare the costs and outcomes of rituximab and best supportive care based on a societal perspective. Accordingly, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated. Probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses were conducted to investigate parameter uncertainty. In addition, the Markov model was used to assess the 5-year budget impact from the government perspective. RESULTS: A rituximab biosimilar demonstrated higher effectiveness and lower associated costs, compared to best supportive care, with the highest probability of being cost-effective (96%). The probability of relapse was the most sensitive parameter according to the one-way sensitivity analysis. The calculated budget impact of treating patients with multiple sclerosis in Thailand was 26,360,000 Thai baht (THB) or 844,255 United States dollars (USD) in the first fiscal year, and approximately 20,810,000-23,080,000 THB (666,608-739,388 USD) in the next four fiscal years. CONCLUSION: In Thailand, a rituximab biosimilar would reduce the overall costs of multiple sclerosis treatment and should, therefore, be included in the National List of Essential Medicines.

Clinical Benefit, Price, and Uptake for Cancer Biosimilars vs Reference Drugs in China: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Importance: The high cost of biologics used to treat cancer has been an increasing burden in the world. In China, the recent approval of cancer biosimilar drugs to resolve this problem is promising, but evidence of clinical benefits, price, and uptake for these drugs is still lacking. Objectives: To compare characteristics of pivotal clinical trials in China and other countries for biosimilars of bevacizumab, rituximab, and trastuzumab and investigate the efficacy or effectiveness, safety, and immunogenicity outcomes of cancer biosimilars compared with reference drugs by meta-analysis. Data Sources: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for published studies from database inception to February 1, 2023, using the search topics (cancers) AND (biosimilars). Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials and cohort studies that included patients with cancer were included. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two authors independently extracted the outcome estimates and characteristics for each study. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed to summarize the relative estimates with 95% CIs. This study was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guideline. Main Outcomes and Measures: Clinical trial characteristics were collected for biosimilars of bevacizumab, rituximab, and trastuzumab. The relative estimates of efficacy or effectiveness (objective response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival), safety, and immunogenicity outcomes were analyzed for biosimilars vs reference drugs. The weighted average price and uptake rate were evaluated for biosimilars relative to their reference drugs between 2015 and 2022. Results: A total of 39 RCTs (involving 18 791 patients) and 10 cohort studies (involving 1998 patients) were included. The biosimilars of bevacizumab (16 RCTs; risk ratio [RR], 0.97; 95% CI, 0.93-1.01; P = .17), rituximab (12 RCTs; RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.98-1.08; P = .70), and trastuzumab (9 RCTs: RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.97-1.12; P = .29) met equivalence with reference biologics in regard to the objective response rate. The results summarized from cohort studies were consistent with those from RCTs. In 2022, cancer biosimilars were priced at 69% to 90% of the costs for the reference drugs, and their uptake reached 54% to 83% in China. Conclusions and Relevance: This systematic review and meta-analysis indicated that cancer biosimilars provided comparable clinical benefits at lower prices compared with reference drugs. These findings suggest the potential feasibility of expediting the transition from reference drugs to biosimilars to benefit more patients with cancer.

Inebilizumab for neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders in Italy: a budget impact model.

BACKGROUND: The Italian National Health Service (INHS) has recently reimbursed the monoclonal antibody inebilizumab as a second line monotherapy after rituximab (RTX) use for neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders (NMOSD) patients ≥ 18 years anti-aquaporin 4 antibody-immunoglobulin G positive, who experienced a relapse in the last year or cannot receive RTX, if incident patients. Other INHS-reimbursed drugs for NMOSD treatment are satralizumab, eculizumab and, off-label, besides RTX, ocrelizumab, tocilizumab, and immunosuppressants. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A 3-year (2023-2025) prevalence-based budget impact model following the INHS viewpoint compared the costs and the NMOSD attacks without (1st scenario) and with inebilizumab (2nd scenario). The epidemiology of NMOSD, and the INHS-funded healthcare resources (drugs and their administration; specialist visits; hospitalizations due to drug-related adverse events and NMOSD attacks) were obtained from the literature. One-way, threshold value and scenario sensitivity analyses investigated the robustness of the baseline findings. RESULTS: During 2023-2025 inebilizumab saves the INHS €8,373,125.13 (1st scenario: €176,770,028.63; 2nd scenario: €168,396,903.50) and 12.74 NMOSD attacks (1st scenario: 213.94; 2nd scenario: 201.19). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the baseline results. CONCLUSION: Inebilizumab reduces the INHS expenditure for NMOSD drugs. Future research should explore the cost-effectiveness of inebilizumab vs other NMOSD-targeting drugs in Italy.

US cost-effectiveness analysis of polatuzumab vedotin in previously untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

AIMS: We evaluated the pharmacoeconomic value of polatuzumab vedotin plus rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (Pola-R-CHP) in previously untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) versus rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 3-state partitioned survival model was used to estimate life years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and cost impacts of Pola-R-CHP versus R-CHOP. Analyses utilized mixture-cure survival modelling, assessed a lifetime horizon, discounted all outcomes at 3% per year, and examined both payer and societal perspectives. Progression-free survival, overall survival (OS), drug utilization, treatment duration, adverse reactions, and subsequent treatment inputs were based on data from the POLARIX study (NCT03274492). Costs included drug acquisition/administration, adverse reaction management, routine care, subsequent treatments, end-of-life care, and work productivity. RESULTS: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of Pola-R-CHP versus R-CHOP were $70,719/QALY gained and $88,855/QALY gained from societal and payer perspectives, respectively. The $32,824 higher total cost of Pola-R-CHP versus R-CHOP was largely due to higher drug costs ($122,525 vs $27,694), with cost offsets including subsequent treatment (-$52,765), routine care (-$1,781), end-of-life care (-$383), and work productivity (-$8,418). Pola-R-CHP resulted in an increase of 0.47 LYs and 0.46 QALYs versus R-CHOP. Pola-R-CHP was cost-effective in 60.9% and 58.0% of simulations at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/QALY gained from societal and payer perspectives, respectively. LIMITATIONS: There was uncertainty around the OS extrapolation in the model, and costs were derived from different sources. Recommended prophylactic medications were not included; prophylactic use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for all patients was assumed to be equal across treatment arms in POLARIX. Work productivity loss was estimated from a general population and was not specific to patients with DLBCL. CONCLUSION: Pola-R-CHP was projected to be cost-effective versus R-CHOP in previously untreated DLBCL, suggesting that Pola-R-CHP represents good value relative to R-CHOP in this setting.