Cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab versus brentuximab vedotin for patients with relapsed or refractory classical Hodgkin's lymphoma: a United States payer perspective

Cost-effectiveness of brentuximab vedotin in Hodgkin lymphoma: a systematic review

PURPOSE

This study aimed to systematically review and critically appraise cost-effectiveness studies on Brentuximab vedotin (BV) in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma (HL).

METHODS

The PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science core collection, and Embase databases were searched until July 3, 2022. We included published full economic evaluation studies on BV for treating patients with HL. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) checklist. Meanwhile, we used qualitative synthesis to analyze the findings. We converted the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) to the value of the US dollar in 2022.

RESULTS

Eight economic evaluations met the study's inclusion criteria. The results of three studies that compared BV plus doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (BV + AVD) front-line therapy with doxorubicin, bleomycin, vincristine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) showed that BV is unlikely to be cost-effective as a front-line treatment in patients advanced stage (III or IV) HL. Four studies investigated the cost-effectiveness of BV in patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) HL after autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). BV was not cost-effective in the reviewed studies at accepted thresholds. In addition, the adjusted ICERs ranged from $65,382 to $374,896 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). The key drivers of cost-effectiveness were medication costs, hazard ratio for BV, and utilities.

CONCLUSION

Available economic evaluations show that using BV as front-line treatment or consolidation therapy is not cost-effective based on specific ICER thresholds for patients with HL or R/R HL. To decide on this orphan drug, we should consider other factors such as existence of alternative treatment options, clinical benefits, and disease burden.

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.

Cost-effectiveness and drug wastage of immunotherapeutic agents for hematologic malignancies: a systematic review

Introduction: Novel immunotherapeutic agents (e.g. monoclonal antibodies, antibody-drug conjugates, bispecific T-cell engagers) as treatment options for hematologic malignancies continue to emerge. These agents have been used as the standard of care in specific disease states and are associated with high costs. Value assessment of these therapies is of critical importance for coverage and reimbursement decision-making.Areas covered: We identified 15 immunotherapeutic agents through the U.S. FDA approvals for hematologic malignancies until 2018 and systematically reviewed related cost-effectiveness studies. Additionally, we examined whether drug wastage was accounted for in these studies.Expert opinion: We reviewed 51 studies for 14 identified immunotherapeutic agents that met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. Three studies were observational-based, one study was model-based and incorporated observational data. The remaining studies were model-based with the majority of the model parameters extracted from randomized control trials (RCTs). Among 43 model-based economic evaluations, 13 studies accounted for drug wastage. Most of the studies showed favorable incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of immunotherapeutic agents-containing regimens when compared with no immunotherapeutic agents-containing regimens. Alemtuzumab, brentuximab vedotin, and daratumumab were not considered cost-effective across all the studies. Further investigations are warranted to establish the value of recent immunotherapeutic agents for hematologic malignancies.