Modelling the cost effectiveness of rituximab in chronic lymphocytic leukaemia in first-line therapy and following relapse.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of adding rituximab to fludarabine and cyclophosphamide (R-FC) for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) has been demonstrated in two randomised trials: CLL-8 was conducted in previously untreated patients, and REACH was conducted in previously treated patients. In both trials, progression-free survival was increased in the R-FC treatment groups compared with the FC treatment groups. In CLL-8, overall survival was also significantly increased. OBJECTIVE: To develop an economic model to assess the cost effectiveness, from the Australian healthcare perspective, of rituximab when used as a treatment for both previously untreated and relapsed/refractory CLL. METHODS: A Markov model with three health states (unprogressed, progressed and death) was developed to extrapolate the trial results over a 15-year time horizon. A treatment algorithm was developed with Australian haematologists to inform the treatments to be modelled. The base-case compares up to three courses of six cycles of R-FC ('first-line' treatment) followed by three courses of post-progression salvage ('Salvage') treatment (including rituximab) with three courses of FC followed by three courses of Salvage treatment (excluding rituximab). Subsequent treatments are incorporated into the model by repeating the unprogressed and progressed health states for each treatment. Time-dependent transition probabilities for the model were estimated from an analysis of individual patient data from CLL-8 and REACH. Comparisons of the hazard rates for the CLL-8 and REACH trials enabled an assessment of the impact on the transitions of receiving the same regimen as the first or second treatment, and hence inform assumptions regarding transitions for third and subsequent treatments. Costs applied in the model were based on published Australian prices in 2009. RESULTS: The model predicts patients receive an average of approximately two courses of treatment, and the addition of rituximab results in an incremental gain of 0.94 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The incremental cost associated with the addition of rituximab is A$40,268, and hence the cost per QALY gained (QALYG) is A$42,906. CONCLUSION: Rituximab, in combination with chemotherapy, when used multiple times throughout the treatment algorithm, appears to be cost effective for CLL from the Australian healthcare perspective, with a cost/QALYG within the range generally accepted as providing value.

Pharmaco-economic analysis of direct medical costs of metastatic colorectal cancer therapy with XELOX or modified FOLFOX-6 regimens: implications for health-care utilization in Australia.

AIM: The objective of this economic evaluation, which was based on patients from two randomized controlled clinical trials (NO16966 and NO16967), was to compare direct medical costs to the Australian health-care system of capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) and bolus and/or infusional 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) plus folinic acid combined with oxaliplatin (modified [m] FOLFOX-6) in first-line and second-line treatment of advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). METHODS: Direct medical costs were estimated for five treatment settings from a public and private hospital. The costs included in evaluation were for drug acquisition, preparation (oxaliplatin, bolus and infusional 5-FU), administration and wastage. The cost of drug acquisition was calculated based on dosage data and the mean number of treatment cycles from the pivotal studies NO16966 and NO16967. There were no costs associated with preparing capecitabine and leucovorin. An oncology grouping and costing study was performed to determine the relevant administration costs associated with central venous access devices, their placement, maintenance and removal (for oxaliplatin administration) and the continuous infusion of 5-FU via a continuous ambulatory delivery device pump or infuser. RESULTS: This economic evaluation has shown that treating mCRC patients with XELOX in the first and second-line settings results in average cost savings of $9110 and $7113, respectively, compared with mFOLFOX-6. A multi-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the use of XELOX remained cost-saving from an Australian government health budget perspective. CONCLUSION: The use of XELOX, compared with mFOLFOX-6, for the treatment of mCRC is cost-saving in the Australian government health budget.