Movatterモバイル変換

[0]ホーム
URL:

Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
Thehttps:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

NIH NLM Logo
Log inShow account info
Access keysNCBI HomepageMyNCBI HomepageMain ContentMain Navigation
pubmed logo
Advanced Clipboard
User Guide

Full text links

Elsevier Science full text link Elsevier Science Free PMC article
Full text links

Actions

Share

Clinical Trial
.2015 Mar;18(2):189-97.
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2014.12.017.

Comparing the cost-effectiveness of rituximab maintenance and radioimmunotherapy consolidation versus observation following first-line therapy in patients with follicular lymphoma

Affiliations
Clinical Trial

Comparing the cost-effectiveness of rituximab maintenance and radioimmunotherapy consolidation versus observation following first-line therapy in patients with follicular lymphoma

Qiushi Chen et al. Value Health.2015 Mar.

Abstract

Background: Phase 3 randomized trials have shown that maintenance rituximab (MR) therapy or radioimmunotherapy (RIT) consolidation following frontline therapy can improve progression-free survival for patients with follicular lymphoma (FL), but the cost-effectiveness of these approaches with respect to observation has not been examined using a common modeling framework.

Objectives: To evaluate and compare the economic impact of MR and RIT consolidation versus observation, respectively, following the first-line induction therapy for patients with advanced-stage FL.

Methods: We developed Markov models to estimate patients' lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and life-years (LYs) after MR, RIT, and observation following frontline FL treatment from the US payer's perspective. Progression risks, adverse event probabilities, costs, and utilities were estimated from clinical data of Primary RItuximab and MAintenance (PRIMA) trial, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) trial (for MR), and First-line Indolent Trial (for RIT) and the published literature. We evaluated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for direct comparisons between MR/RIT and observation. Model robustness was addressed by one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Results: Compared with observation, MR provided an additional 1.089 QALYs (1.099 LYs) and 1.399 QALYs (1.391 LYs) on the basis of the PRIMA trial and the ECOG trial, respectively, and RIT provided an additional 1.026 QALYs (1.034 LYs). The incremental cost per QALY gained was $40,335 (PRIMA) or $37,412 (ECOG) for MR and $40,851 for RIT. MR and RIT had comparable incremental QALYs before first progression, whereas RIT had higher incremental costs of adverse events due to higher incidences of cytopenias.

Conclusions: MR and RIT following frontline FL therapy demonstrated favorable and similar cost-effectiveness profiles. The model results should be interpreted within the specific clinical settings of each trial. Selection of MR, RIT, or observation should be based on patient characteristics and expected trade-offs for these alternatives.

Keywords: cost-effectiveness; follicular lymphoma; lymphoma; maintenance; non-Hodgkin lymphoma; radioimmunotherapy; rituximab.

Copyright © 2015 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Markov model
Description and data sources: a: PFS for each arm (i.e., MR/RIT/observation), source: PRIMA/ECOG/FIT trials b: OS for each arm (i.e., MR/RIT/observation), source: PRIMA/ECOG/FIT trials and the US life table c: PFS after first progression, source: EROTC20981 trial (the second randomization, observation arm without rituximab maintenance) d: OS after first progression, source: EROTC20981 trial e: OS after second progression, source: Rummel et al. (2005).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Tornado diagrams of most influential variables to ICERs.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Chan W, Armitage J, Gascoyne R, et al. A clinical evaluation of the International Lymphoma Study Group classification of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Blood. 1997;89:3909–18. - PubMed
    1. Swerdlow SH. WHO classification of tumours of haematopoietic and lymphoid tissues. World Health Organization; 2008.
    1. Howlader NNA, Krapcho M, Garshell J, Miller D, Altekruse SF, Kosary CL, Yu M, Ruhl J, Tatalovich Z, Mariotto A, Lewis DR, Chen HS, Feuer EJ, Cronin KA. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2011. National Cancer Institute; 2014.
    1. Hoppe BS, Hodgson DC, Advani R, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Localized Nodal Indolent Lymphoma. Oncology-New York. 2013;27:786–94. - PubMed
    1. Friedberg J, Huang J, Dillon H, et al. Initial therapeutic strategy in follicular lymphoma (FL): An analysis from the National LymphoCare Study (NLCS). ASCO Annual Meeting Proceedings; 2006.

Publication types

MeSH terms

Substances

Related information

Grants and funding

LinkOut - more resources

Full text links
Elsevier Science full text link Elsevier Science Free PMC article
Cite
Send To

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSHPMCBookshelfDisclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

[8]ページ先頭
©2009-2025 Movatter.jp