Economic evaluation of brentuximab vedotin for persistent Hodgkin lymphoma

Cost-effectiveness of brentuximab vedotin compared with conventional chemotherapy for relapsed or refractory classic Hodgkin lymphoma in China

BACKGROUND

Relapsed or refractory classic Hodgkin lymphoma (RRcHL) associates with poor prognosis and heavy disease burden to patients. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of brentuximab vedotin (BV) in comparison to conventional chemotherapy in patients with RRcHL, from a Chinese healthcare perspective.

METHODS

The lifetime cost and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated through a partitioned survival model with three health states (progression free, post progression, and death). Two cohorts for each BV arm and chemotherapy arm were built, representing patients with and without transplant after BV or chemotherapy, respectively. Clinical parameters were retrieved from BV trials and the literature. Resource utilization data were mainly collected from local expert surveys and cost parameters were reflecting local unit prices. Utility values were sourced from the literature. A discount rate of 5% was employed according to the Chinese guideline. A series of deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the robustness and uncertainty associated with the model.

RESULTS

Results of the base case analysis showed that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for BV versus chemotherapy was $2,867 (¥19,774). The main model driver was the superior progression-free and overall survival benefits of BV. The ICERs were relatively robust in a series of sensitivity analyses, all under a conventional decision threshold (1 time of Chinese per capita GDP). With this conventional threshold, the probability of BV being cost-effective was 100%.

CONCLUSIONS

Brentuximab vedotin can be considered a cost-effective treatment versus conventional chemotherapy in treating relapsed or refractory classic Hodgkin lymphoma in China.

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.

The cost of chemotherapy administration: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Cancer treatment is a significant driver of healthcare costs worldwide, however, the economic impact of treating patients with anti-neoplastic agents is poorly elucidated. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the direct costs associated with administering intravenous chemotherapy in an outpatient setting.

METHODS

We systematically searched four databases from 2010 to present and extracted hourly administration costs and the respective components of each estimate. Separate analyses were conducted of Canadian and United States (US) studies, respectively, to address a priori hypotheses regarding heterogeneity amongst estimates. The Drummond checklist was used to assess risk-of-bias. Data were summarized using medians with interquartile ranges and five outliers were identified; costs were presented in 2019 USD.

RESULTS

Forty-four studies were analyzed, including sub-analyses of 19 US and seven Canadian studies. 26/44 studies were of moderate-high quality. When components of administration cost were evaluated, physician costs were reported most frequently (24 studies), followed by lab tests (13) and overhead costs (9). The median estimate (excluding outliers) was $142/hour (IQR = $103-166). The median administration cost in the US was $149/hour (IQR = $118-158), and was $128/hour (IQR = $102-137) in Canada.

CONCLUSIONS

There is currently a paucity of literature addressing the costs of chemotherapy administration, and existing studies utilize a patchwork of reporting methodologies which renders direct comparison challenging. Our results demonstrate that the cost of administering chemotherapy is approximately $125-150/hour, globally. This value is dependent upon the region of analysis, inclusiveness of cost subcomponents as well as the methodology used to estimate unit prices, as described here.

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.

Plant-made immunotoxin building blocks: A roadmap for producing therapeutic antibody-toxin fusions

Molecular farming in plants is an emerging platform for the production of pharmaceutical proteins, and host species such as tobacco are now becoming competitive with commercially established production hosts based on bacteria and mammalian cell lines. The range of recombinant therapeutic proteins produced in plants includes replacement enzymes, vaccines and monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). But plants can also be used to manufacture toxins, such as the mistletoe lectin viscumin, providing an opportunity to express active antibody-toxin fusion proteins, so-called recombinant immunotoxins (RITs). Mammalian production systems are currently used to produce antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs), which require the separate expression and purification of each component followed by a complex and hazardous coupling procedure. In contrast, RITs made in plants are expressed in a single step and could therefore reduce production and purification costs. The costs can be reduced further if subcellular compartments that accumulate large quantities of the stable protein are identified and optimal plant growth conditions are selected. In this review, we first provide an overview of the current state of RIT production in plants before discussing the three key components of RITs in detail. The specificity-defining domain (often an antibody) binds cancer cells, including solid tumors and hematological malignancies. The toxin provides the means to kill target cells. Toxins from different species with different modes of action can be used for this purpose. Finally, the linker spaces the two other components to ensure they adopt a stable, functional conformation, and may also promote toxin release inside the cell. Given the diversity of these components, we extract broad principles that can be used as recommendations for the development of effective RITs. Future research should focus on such proteins to exploit the advantages of plants as efficient production platforms for targeted anti-cancer therapeutics.

Impact of imaging modality on clinical outcome in Hodgkin lymphoma in a resource constraint setting

Treatment of Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) has evolved with risk-stratified therapy based on PET-CT scan at multiple timepoints. In a resource constraint setting even a single PET-CT scan ($400) is inaccessible to many patients, who are re-assessed with only clinical examination, abdominal ultrasonogram and/or x-ray (C/U/X) ($10). To compare clinical outcomes in patients with HL who have had suboptimal imaging after completion of chemotherapy for HL, with those who had a CT or PET-CT, 283 patients were treated for HL from 2011 to 2015, and 268 patients completed six cycles of ABVD therapy with response assessment modality by CT/PET in 185 patients and by C/U/X in 83. There was no difference in the number of patients with advanced (64·1% vs. 61·1%; P = 0·650) or bulk disease (8·1% vs. 7·2%). A significantly higher number of patients in the CT/PET group received IFRT (25·4% vs. 7·7%; P = 0·0005). The three-year overall survival and progression-free survival of all treated patients (n = 283) was 83·5 ± 2·3% and 76·7 ± 2·6% respectively [median follow-up 36 months (range 2-93)]. At three years, the overall relapse-free survival (RFS) was 80·1 ± 2·5%, with RFS of 77 ± 3·2% vs. 85 ± 4·0% in the CT/PET group and C/U/X groups respectively (P = 0·349). There was no difference in RFS between the two groups either in early-stage disease (88·1 ± 4·6% vs. 91·8 ± 5·6%; P = 0·671) or late-stage disease (73·9 ± 4·8% vs. 81·3 ± 6·0%; P = 0·747). The only significant factor adversely affecting RFS was advanced disease (P = 0·004). Factors not affecting RFS were age (P = 0·763), sex (P = 0·925), bulk disease (P = 0·889) and imaging modality (P = 0·352). There was no difference in relapse rates between patients who had suboptimal imaging compared to those who had a PET/CT. It is possible to use these basic imaging modalities when resources are a constraint, with acceptable outcomes.

Cost, Value, and Financial Hardship in Cancer Care: Implications for Pediatric Oncology

Cancer care in the United States faces a perfect storm: an aging population and expected increased cancer incidence, growing numbers of cancer survivors with ongoing care needs, and continued scientific advancements, offering extraordinary promise at extraordinary cost. How, then, do we as pediatric oncologists engage in the dialogue about cancer cost considerations? The purpose of this article and its accompanying session presented at the 2018 ASCO Annual Meeting is to introduce concepts of cost, value, and financial hardship. In the first section, we will provide an overview of principles of health economics, including components of cost, time horizon consideration, discounting, and methods to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness among therapeutic approaches. We will then introduce the value framework being debated in adult oncology and offer potential opportunities for its application in pediatric oncology. In the second section, we will describe the integration of the cost-effectiveness paradigm in an ongoing pediatric clinical trial, including design and analytic considerations. In the third section, we will shift away from cost to the health care system to cost to the patient, which is also termed "financial toxicity" or "financial hardship," focusing on the ongoing burden of cost on survivors of childhood cancer. Our goal is to provide our readers with the vocabulary and understanding of this complex and often thorny debate so that they can be active participants and informed advocates for their patients.