Lenalidomide plus rituximab Vs rituximab alone in relapsed or refractory indolent lymphoma: A cost‐effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to evaluate the cost‐effectiveness of lenalidomide plus rituximab vs rituximab alone in patients with relapsed or refractory indolent lymphoma. METHODS: A Markov decision model was established to carry out the cost‐effectiveness analysis. Three discrete health states, progression‐free survival (PFS), progressive disease (PD), and death, were included. Cycle length was set at 1 month, and utility scores were derived from previously published literature. The incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER) was defined as the primary endpoint, and the willingness‐to‐pay (WTP) threshold was set at $29,306.43 per quality‐adjusted life year (QALY). Both cost and effectiveness were determined using a 3% annual discount rate. Furthermore, one‐way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to check the robustness of the model. RESULTS: Lenalidomide plus rituximab gained 6.08 QALYs at a cost of $120,979.62 while rituximab alone gained 4.84 QALYs at a cost of $48,052.11. The ICER of lenalidomide plus rituximab vs rituximab alone was $58,812.51/QALY. The parameters most significantly influenced the model were the utility values for the PFS state, the duration of the PFS state in the lenalidomide plus rituximab group, and the cost of lenalidomide. The probability of lenalidomide plus rituximab or rituximab alone being the most cost‐effective option was 0% and 100%, respectively, at a WTP threshold of $29,306.43/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Lenalidomide plus rituximab is not a cost‐effective strategy compared with rituximab monotherapy for relapsed or refractory indolent lymphoma from a Chinese societal perspective.