Cargando…

Cost-Effectiveness of Brentuximab Vedotin Versus Physician’s Choice of Methotrexate or Bexarotene for the Treatment of Cutaneous T-cell Lymphoma in Canada

INTRODUCTION: Brentuximab vedotin versus physician’s choice of methotrexate (MTX) or bexarotene (BEX) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) (median PFS, 16.7 vs. 3.5 months) and delayed time to subsequent treatment (8.4 vs. 3.7 months), with similar overall survival in patients with...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Elsea, David, Savage, Kerry J., Lilley, Cameron, Lisano, Julie, Liu, Jingmin, Yu, Kristina S.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Healthcare 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10129955/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36920744
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12325-023-02470-9
_version_ 1785030867993755648
author Elsea, David
Savage, Kerry J.
Lilley, Cameron
Lisano, Julie
Liu, Jingmin
Yu, Kristina S.
author_facet Elsea, David
Savage, Kerry J.
Lilley, Cameron
Lisano, Julie
Liu, Jingmin
Yu, Kristina S.
author_sort Elsea, David
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Brentuximab vedotin versus physician’s choice of methotrexate (MTX) or bexarotene (BEX) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) (median PFS, 16.7 vs. 3.5 months) and delayed time to subsequent treatment (8.4 vs. 3.7 months), with similar overall survival in patients with CD30-expressing mycosis fungoides (MF) or primary cutaneous anaplastic large cell lymphoma (pcALCL), two types of cutaneous T-cell lymphomas. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of brentuximab vedotin versus MTX or BEX from a Canadian healthcare payer perspective in the indicated population. METHODS: A 5-state partitioned survival model [pre-progression, non-stem cell transplant (SCT) post-progression, SCT, SCT relapse, death] with a weekly cycle length and 45-year lifetime horizon has been developed. Health-state occupancies, utility estimates, and treatment duration were informed by ALCANZA. Other inputs and costs came from the literature or clinician experts. Scenario analyses varied key parameters and tested assumptions. RESULTS: Brentuximab vedotin versus MTX or BEX was cost-effective; the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was CAN$43,790 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Brentuximab vedotin was more effective (incremental life years: 0.15; QALYs: 0.25) and total treatment costs were slightly higher (incremental costs: $11,105) than MTX or BEX. Key model drivers included end-stage care duration, SCT eligibility, and brentuximab vedotin retreatment rates. CONCLUSION: Brentuximab vedotin compared with MTX or BEX was cost-effective for CD30-expressing MF and pcALCL. Brentuximab vedotin’s higher drug costs versus MTX or BEX were offset by decreased post-progression and end-stage management costs, and showed a 0.25 QALY gain versus MTX or BEX, and increased the proportion of patients eligible for potentially curative SCT. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-023-02470-9.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10129955
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Springer Healthcare
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-101299552023-04-27 Cost-Effectiveness of Brentuximab Vedotin Versus Physician’s Choice of Methotrexate or Bexarotene for the Treatment of Cutaneous T-cell Lymphoma in Canada Elsea, David Savage, Kerry J. Lilley, Cameron Lisano, Julie Liu, Jingmin Yu, Kristina S. Adv Ther Original Research INTRODUCTION: Brentuximab vedotin versus physician’s choice of methotrexate (MTX) or bexarotene (BEX) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) (median PFS, 16.7 vs. 3.5 months) and delayed time to subsequent treatment (8.4 vs. 3.7 months), with similar overall survival in patients with CD30-expressing mycosis fungoides (MF) or primary cutaneous anaplastic large cell lymphoma (pcALCL), two types of cutaneous T-cell lymphomas. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of brentuximab vedotin versus MTX or BEX from a Canadian healthcare payer perspective in the indicated population. METHODS: A 5-state partitioned survival model [pre-progression, non-stem cell transplant (SCT) post-progression, SCT, SCT relapse, death] with a weekly cycle length and 45-year lifetime horizon has been developed. Health-state occupancies, utility estimates, and treatment duration were informed by ALCANZA. Other inputs and costs came from the literature or clinician experts. Scenario analyses varied key parameters and tested assumptions. RESULTS: Brentuximab vedotin versus MTX or BEX was cost-effective; the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was CAN$43,790 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Brentuximab vedotin was more effective (incremental life years: 0.15; QALYs: 0.25) and total treatment costs were slightly higher (incremental costs: $11,105) than MTX or BEX. Key model drivers included end-stage care duration, SCT eligibility, and brentuximab vedotin retreatment rates. CONCLUSION: Brentuximab vedotin compared with MTX or BEX was cost-effective for CD30-expressing MF and pcALCL. Brentuximab vedotin’s higher drug costs versus MTX or BEX were offset by decreased post-progression and end-stage management costs, and showed a 0.25 QALY gain versus MTX or BEX, and increased the proportion of patients eligible for potentially curative SCT. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-023-02470-9. Springer Healthcare 2023-03-15 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC10129955/ /pubmed/36920744 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12325-023-02470-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Research
Elsea, David
Savage, Kerry J.
Lilley, Cameron
Lisano, Julie
Liu, Jingmin
Yu, Kristina S.
Cost-Effectiveness of Brentuximab Vedotin Versus Physician’s Choice of Methotrexate or Bexarotene for the Treatment of Cutaneous T-cell Lymphoma in Canada
title Cost-Effectiveness of Brentuximab Vedotin Versus Physician’s Choice of Methotrexate or Bexarotene for the Treatment of Cutaneous T-cell Lymphoma in Canada
title_full Cost-Effectiveness of Brentuximab Vedotin Versus Physician’s Choice of Methotrexate or Bexarotene for the Treatment of Cutaneous T-cell Lymphoma in Canada
title_fullStr Cost-Effectiveness of Brentuximab Vedotin Versus Physician’s Choice of Methotrexate or Bexarotene for the Treatment of Cutaneous T-cell Lymphoma in Canada
title_full_unstemmed Cost-Effectiveness of Brentuximab Vedotin Versus Physician’s Choice of Methotrexate or Bexarotene for the Treatment of Cutaneous T-cell Lymphoma in Canada
title_short Cost-Effectiveness of Brentuximab Vedotin Versus Physician’s Choice of Methotrexate or Bexarotene for the Treatment of Cutaneous T-cell Lymphoma in Canada
title_sort cost-effectiveness of brentuximab vedotin versus physician’s choice of methotrexate or bexarotene for the treatment of cutaneous t-cell lymphoma in canada
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10129955/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36920744
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12325-023-02470-9
work_keys_str_mv AT elseadavid costeffectivenessofbrentuximabvedotinversusphysicianschoiceofmethotrexateorbexaroteneforthetreatmentofcutaneoustcelllymphomaincanada
AT savagekerryj costeffectivenessofbrentuximabvedotinversusphysicianschoiceofmethotrexateorbexaroteneforthetreatmentofcutaneoustcelllymphomaincanada
AT lilleycameron costeffectivenessofbrentuximabvedotinversusphysicianschoiceofmethotrexateorbexaroteneforthetreatmentofcutaneoustcelllymphomaincanada
AT lisanojulie costeffectivenessofbrentuximabvedotinversusphysicianschoiceofmethotrexateorbexaroteneforthetreatmentofcutaneoustcelllymphomaincanada
AT liujingmin costeffectivenessofbrentuximabvedotinversusphysicianschoiceofmethotrexateorbexaroteneforthetreatmentofcutaneoustcelllymphomaincanada
AT yukristinas costeffectivenessofbrentuximabvedotinversusphysicianschoiceofmethotrexateorbexaroteneforthetreatmentofcutaneoustcelllymphomaincanada