Treatment pathways and resource use associated with recurrent Hodgkin lymphoma after autologous stem cell transplantation

A systematic literature review of the epidemiology, quality of life, and economic burden, including disease pathways and treatment patterns of relapsed/refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma

INTRODUCTION

A systematic literature review was conducted to understand disease burden in patients with relapsed/refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma (R/R cHL).

AREAS COVERED

Embase®, PubMed®, and Cochrane were searched for records from 2001 to 2020 in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. A total of 13,257 abstracts and 1731 papers were screened; 144 studies were identified. cHL accounted for 0.5% of all cancers, with 4‒66.7% of cases progressing to R/R disease (studies with >500 patients); this range varied across countries. Quality of life (QoL) was assessed via EORTC-QLQ-C30 (n = 7), EQ-5D (n = 5), SF-36 (n = 3), FACIT-F (n = 1), and MFI (n = 1) questionnaires. In general, pembrolizumab and other programmed cell death protein-1 inhibitors improved QoL scores. Brentuximab vedotin showed mixed outcomes, and high-dose therapy (HDT) and autologous stem-cell rescue (ASCR) showed worsening functionality/symptoms. Economic burden studies (n = 21) reported increased costs and health care resource in R/R cHL. Across clinical guidelines (n = 13) and treatment pattern studies (n = 46), HDT followed by ASCR was recommended as initial R/R cHL treatment. Pembrolizumab and nivolumab were frequently recommended for patients relapsing following HDT/ASCR.

EXPERT OPINION

Despite recent treatment advances, patients with R/R cHL continue to report reduced quality of life. Unmet medical needs remain, particularly with respect to slowing disease progression and identifying the best treatment approaches for improving longer-term survival and quality of life. This systematic literature review provides an extensive overview of the current landscape in patients with R/R cHL, focusing on four key areas: epidemiology, QoL, economic burden, and disease management. These findings will be useful to those with an interest in managing patients with R/R cHL or in designing future studies.

Pembrolizumab for Treating Relapsed or Refractory Classical Hodgkin Lymphoma: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal

As part of its Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Merck Sharp & Dohme; MSD) of pembrolizumab (Keytruda®) to submit evidence of its clinical and cost effectiveness for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma (RRcHL) who did not respond to treatment with brentuximab vedotin. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, in collaboration with Maastricht University Medical Centre+, was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). The ERG produced a detailed review of the evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of the technology, based on the company's submission to NICE. According to the NICE scope, pembrolizumab was compared with single or combination chemotherapy. Comparisons were undertaken in two populations: patients who did and did not receive prior autologous stem cell transplant (autoSCT; populations 1 and 2, respectively). Despite it having been recommended by NICE in population 1 at the time the ERG received the company submission, nivolumab was not included as a comparator. No studies directly comparing pembrolizumab and its comparators were identified. One ongoing, single-arm study of the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab (KEYNOTE-087) and one comparative observational study (Cheah et al., 2016) were used to inform the comparative effectiveness of pembrolizumab and standard of care (SoC), using indirect comparisons in both populations. Almost all analyses showed significant PFS and overall response rate benefits for pembrolizumab versus SoC, but due to being based on indirect comparison, were likely to contain systematic error. The economic evaluation therefore suffered from substantial uncertainty in any estimates of cost effectiveness. Furthermore, there was a lack of evidence on the uptake and timing of allogeneic stem cell transplant, and alternative assumptions had a significant impact on cost effectiveness. Immature survival data from KEYNOTE-087 exacerbated this issue and necessitated the use of alternative data sources for longer-term extrapolation of survival. Some issues identified in the company's analyses were amended by the ERG. The revised ERG deterministic base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratios based on the company's second Appraisal Consultation Document response for pembrolizumab versus SoC (with a commercial access agreement) for populations 1 and 2 were £54,325 and £62,527 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, respectively. There was substantial uncertainty around these ICERs, especially in population 2. NICE did not recommend pembrolizumab as an option for treating RRcHL in population 1, but recommended pembrolizumab for use within the Cancer Drugs Fund in population 2.

Real-world analysis of cost, health care resource utilization, and supportive care in Hodgkin lymphoma patients with frontline failure

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the economic burden of frontline failure (FLF) among classical Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) patients during and after treatment.

Patients and methods

The population consisted of adult HL patients identified from January 2010 through September 2015 without any other primary cancer prior to HL diagnosis, who also had a frontline (FL) regimen indicative of curative intent. Patients were characterized as FLF (those who restart, switch to any chemotherapy; had a hematopoietic stem cell transplant; or newly initiated radiation therapy [RT] after discontinuing FL) or non-FLF (those not considered as FLF). Direct health care utilization and expenditures were measured over both fixed and variable length follow-up periods and during FL therapy.

Results

There were 77 FLF and 602 non-FLF patients who met the final inclusion criteria. FLF and non-FLF patients were demographically similar with mean age 38.5 years and 47.5% females. Average per patient per month (PPPM) costs were significantly higher for FLF patients during all follow-up (US$20,266 vs US$7,772, P<0.05). Annual total expenditures were significantly higher among FLF patients (US$198,388) vs non-FLF patients (US$37,549). FLF (vs non-FLF) patients had a significantly shorter duration of FL therapy (116 vs 131 days, P=0.024) and higher total PPPM expenditures during FL (US$29,040 vs US$16,369, P<0.05). Annual cost varied by failure type with those who failed due to restart incurring the highest cost (US$269,189) and those who switched incurring the lowest cost (US$46,951). FLF patients had a significantly greater utilization in every health care resource category during follow-up.

Conclusion

FLF (vs non-FLF) patients utilized substantially more health care resources and incurred a substantially higher economic burden. Over 5 years, FLF patients with at least two lines of treatment were projected to incur US$535,846 of health care costs. Further research is needed to determine optimal treatment that could reduce the risk of progression, need for treatment after FL, and enhance long-term clinical and economic outcomes.