Economic evaluation of brentuximab vedotin for persistent Hodgkin lymphoma

Original Article


Economic evaluation of brentuximab vedotin for persistent Hodgkin lymphoma


V. Babashov, MSc*, M.A. Begen, PhD, J. Mangel, MD§, G.S. Zaric, PhD


doi: https://doi.org/10.3747/co.24.3369


ABSTRACT

Background

We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of brentuximab vedotin for the treatment of relapsed and refractory Hodgkin lymphoma (hl) in the post–autologous stem-cell transplantation (asct) failure period, from the perspective of the Canadian health care payer.

Methods

We developed a decision-analytic model to simulate lifetime costs and benefits of brentuximab vedotin compared with best supportive care for the treatment of patients with hl after failure of asct. Administrative data from Ontario were used to set the model parameters.

Results

In the base case, treatment with brentuximab vedotin resulted in incremental quality-adjusted life-years (qalys) of 0.544 and an incremental cost of $89,366 per patient, corresponding to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (icer) of $164,248 per qaly gained. The icer was sensitive to the cost of brentuximab vedotin, the hazard ratio used to assess the efficacy of brentuximab vedotin treatment, and health state utilities.

Conclusions

In light of the available information, brentuximab vedotin has an icer exceeding $100,000 per qaly gained, which is a level often classified as having “weak evidence for adoption and appropriate utilization” in Canada. However, it is worth noting that provincial cancer agencies take into account not only the costs and associated icer, but also other factors such as a lack of alternative treatment options and the clinical benefits of expensive cancer drugs. Pricing arrangements should be negotiated, and risk-sharing agreements or patient access schemes should be explored.

KEYWORDS: Hodgkin lymphoma, brentuximab vedotin, cost-effectiveness analyses, Markov models

INTRODUCTION

Hodgkin lymphoma (hl) is an uncommon type of cancer with an incidence of approximately 3 per 100,000 population in Canada1. In 2012, 940 new cases of hl were diagnosed in Canada1. Conventional treatment options for hl include chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation. Although survival outcomes are favourable for most patients, a proportion do not experience a cure with standard treatment regimens24.

The standard of care for young healthy patients who relapse after front-line therapy is salvage chemotherapy, followed by high-dose therapy and autologous stem-cell transplantation (asct). Approximately 50% of patients relapse after asct5, and prognosis tends to be poor for those who relapse, with a short median progression-free survival6,7. Available treatment options for the latter group are limited, and of the available options, many are subject to the faults of being tested in nonrandomized settings. Furthermore, toxicity- and treatment-related mortality rates are high, making those treatments unattractive to hematologists and patients. Historically, third-line treatment options in patients who relapse after asct include allogeneic stem-cell transplantation, a second asct, radiation therapy, and single-agent or combination chemotherapy, all of which are ultimately palliative. The reported benefits of those therapies vary, with median survival ranging from 6 months to 30 months811.

Brentuximab vedotin (Adcetris: Seattle Genetics, Bothell, WA, U.S.A.) is a CD30-directed antibody–drug conjugate that selectively targets and kills cancer cells expressing the CD30 antigen, such as classical hl and systemic anaplastic large-cell lymphoma. Early phase i and ii clinical trials demonstrated favourable response rates and toxic effects, and promising progression-free survival rates12,13. The phase ii trial showed that 75% of patients achieved complete or partial remission, with a median progression-free survival of 5.6 months12. According to recent data from the long-term follow-up of the phase ii study, median overall survival was 40.5 months14. Reported treatment-related adverse events included peripheral sensory neuropathy, fatigue, nausea, neutropenia, diarrhea, and pyrexia. Approximately 20% of patients discontinued treatment because of a treatment-related adverse event. Peripheral sensory neuropathy and peripheral motor neuropathy were the most commonly reported reasons for stopping treatment.

In addition to being a third-line treatment option, brentuximab vedotin has been evaluated in ongoing clinical trials as monotherapy, as part of combination therapy in the first- and second-line settings15, and as post-asct consolidation therapy16.

Brentuximab vedotin received regulatory approval for the treatment of hl after failure of asct or after failure of 2 prior multi-agent chemotherapy regimens in transplantation-ineligible patients, and also for the treatment of patients with relapsed systemic anaplastic large-cell lymphoma17. In Canada, the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review recommended funding the drug for patients who relapse after asct and for patients with systemic anaplastic large-cell lymphoma, with the condition that in either case, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (icer) be improved to an acceptable threshold18. In Ontario, Cancer Care Ontario listed brentuximab vedotin as a part of the New Drug Funding Program19.

In light of the decision to fund brentuximab vedotin in certain clinical circumstances, we evaluated the incremental health benefits, costs, and cost-effectiveness of brentuximab vedotin treatment from the perspective of the Canadian health care payer. We developed a decision-analytic model and used the Ontario Cancer Registry, administrative databases, and published sources to set the model parameters.

METHODS

Model Overview

The decision-analytic model projects the lifetime clinical and economic consequences for hl patients who receive third-line treatment after failure of asct. The model starts with a clinical decision to treat with brentuximab vedotin rather than with best supportive care [Figure 1(A)]. Two distinct Markov models represent the decision alternatives: M1 models treatment with brentuximab vedotin, and M2 models the provision of best supportive care [Figure 1(B,C)]. In the base-case scenario, M2 uses single-agent gemcitabine20 as the best supportive care agent.

 


 

FIGURE 1 Decision-analytic model: (A) Decision tree. (B) Markov model M1 (brentuximab vedotin). (C) Markov model M2 (best supportive care).

In the M1 model, the simulation of lifetime costs and benefits for patients receiving brentuximab vedotin treatment includes four health states:

  • ■ Patient shows improvement or remains stable

  • ■ Patient develops a treatment-related serious adverse event that prevents continuation of treatment

  • ■ Patient’s disease progresses

  • ■ Death

In the M2 model, the simulation of lifetime economic and clinical outcomes for patients receiving best supportive care includes three distinct health states:

  • ■ Patient is free from treatment failure

  • ■ Patient’s disease progresses

  • ■ Death

The model assumes that peripheral sensory neuropathy is the only adverse reaction that would stop a patient from continuing treatment with brentuximab vedotin, leading to a switch from brentuximab vedotin to best supportive care. A separate health state named Treatment-Related Serious Adverse Event was incorporated into the M1 model to account for changes in treatment costs, health care utilization costs, and quality of life associated with stopping brentuximab vedotin and switching to best supportive care.

The model was developed using the TreeAge Pro Suite software application (2015 release: TreeAge Software, Williamstown, MA, U.S.A.), and it was run using a lifetime horizon with half-cycle correction.

Data and Cohort

The model was populated using data from the pivotal phase ii clinical trial13 and by administrative and cancer registry data obtained from the Ontario Cancer Data Linkage Project (“cd-link,” http://www.ices.on.ca/Research/Research-programs/Cancer/cd-link). Cd-link is an initiative of the Ontario Institute for Cancer Research and Cancer Care Ontario’s Health Services Research Program, whereby risk-reduced coded data from the ICES Data Repository managed by the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences is provided directly to researchers with the protections of a comprehensive data use agreement. Cd-link connects data from the Ontario Cancer Registry with several Ontario administrative databases, including the Discharge Abstract Databases, the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (ohip), and the Ontario Drug Benefit.

Using the cancer registry, we identified 2475 patients diagnosed with hl in Ontario during 2000–2006. By linking the Ontario Cancer Registry data for those patients with the ohip database, we determined that 163 patients received second-line high-dose chemotherapy followed by asct.

The phase ii trial included only patients who experienced a failed asct, and we therefore restricted the study cohort to a similar group. Of the 163 patients who underwent asct, 77 patients who went on to receive third-line treatment—either chemotherapy, radiation therapy, a second asct, or allogeneic stem-cell transplantation after the asct—were identified. We assumed that those patients received the additional treatment because they had relapsed after the asct. Table i summarizes the clinical characteristics of those patients.

TABLE I Clinical characteristics of 77 patients with Hodgkin lymphoma who relapsed after autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT)

 

To conduct the survival analysis, we extracted 2-year follow-up data for the patients from the ohip database and used treatment switch or re-treatment as a proxy for progression. We assumed that patients developed progression after third-line treatment if they satisfied at least 1 of the following criteria:

  • ■ received chemotherapy 5 months after third-line treatment,

  • ■ received chemotherapy with a difference of at least 60 days in service dates for 2 consecutive chemotherapy physician claims,

  • ■ received radiation therapy,

  • ■ underwent stem-cell transplantation, or

  • ■ received palliative care.

Estimation of Transition Probabilities

We estimated transition probabilities for Freedom from Treatment Failure to Progression in the M2 model and for Progression to Death by fitting a Weibull distribution to patient follow-up data obtained through cd-link. We obtained transition probabilities for Improve or Remain Stable to Disease Progression in the M1 model by adjusting the Weibull progression-free survival curve fitted to the patient follow-up data retrieved from the cd-link for the hazard ratio of 0.41—an outcome of the subgroup analysis comparing the hazard for patients on brentuximab vedotin therapy after systemic therapy with the hazard for patients receiving prior systemic therapy as reported for the phase ii clinical trial.

To compute the transition probabilities beyond the 24-month follow-up period, we extrapolated the fitted Weibull survival curves. We used Ontario sex-specific life tables and the sex distribution in the phase ii trial and in the cohort obtained from cd-link to derive all-cause mortality rates.

Finally, we assumed that patients who develop a treatment-related adverse event such as peripheral sensory neuropathy, and thus discontinue brentuximab vedotin treatment (M1 model), follow the same transition probability matrix as do patients in the best supportive care model (M2 model).

Cost and Utility Values

The list price of brentuximab vedotin in Canada is $4,840.00 per 50 mg vial21. The cost of gemcitabine, which is funded through the New Drug Funding Program in Ontario, is $0.0620 per milligram. The cost of administration was estimated from the internal costing database at the London Regional Cancer Program in London, Ontario.

We estimated hospitalization costs using resource intensity weights recorded in the Discharge Abstract Database and the cost per weighted case obtained from the annual report of hospital financial performance indicators released by the Canadian Institute for Health Information22. Physician costs were estimated from the ohip database, and drug costs were obtained from the Ontario Drug Benefit database.

Several studies have reported health state utilities and health-related quality of life measures in connection with treatment outcomes and toxicities for patients with relapsed and refractory hl2327. In the base case, we assumed that brentuximab vedotin neither improves nor worsens quality of life; thus, quality of life would be the same for the Improve or Stable and Free From Treatment Failure states. According to the published literature, long-term quality of life for persistent hl after high-dose chemotherapy plus asct is 0.828. We also assumed that quality of life is decremented by 10% when a patient with hl relapses after third-line treatment28. Finally, we assumed that patients developing peripheral sensory neuropathy would have the same quality of life as an individual with breast cancer developing the same adverse reaction29.

Costs were converted to 2012 Canadian dollars using the health and personal care consumer price index30. All costs and benefits were discounted at 5% according to Canadian guidelines31.

RESULTS

Base-Case Scenario

In the base case, brentuximab vedotin treatment resulted in an average incremental utility of 0.544 quality-adjusted life-years (qalys) per person and an average incremental cost of $89,366 per person, which resulted in an icer of $164,248 per qaly gained.

Sensitivity Analyses

We conducted a number of sensitivity and scenario analyses. The icer was sensitive to several model input parameters (Table ii). When the probability of developing peripheral sensory neuropathy dropped to 1% compared with 5.8% in the base case, the icer decreased to $69,540 per qaly gained. The icer fell to $121,092 per qaly gained if patients on brentuximab vedotin treatment had perfect health (utility of 1) rather than 0.8 as was assumed in the base case.

TABLE II Summary of one-way sensitivity analyses

 

When patients receiving best supportive care with no evidence of progression had a utility of 0.6, rather than 0.8 as was assumed in the base case, the icer became $100,476 per qaly gained. When no discounting was in effect, the icer dropped to $122,040 per qaly gained. The model outcomes were relatively robust to changes in other parameters such as the cost of brentuximab vedotin administration, chemotherapy cycle, pre- and post-progression health care utilization, transition probabilities, and utility of progression (Table ii).

We conducted sensitivity analyses on the price of brentuximab vedotin and the relative survival advantage of brentuximab vedotin compared with best supportive care. When the cost of brentuximab vedotin was reduced by approximately 80%, the icer was less than $50,000 per qaly gained. The icer fell below $100,000 per qaly gained if the daily cost of the drug was lowered by approximately 45% and below $150,000 per qaly gained when the daily cost was lowered by more than 10%. The icer fell to $129,420 per qaly gained when the hazard ratio was 0.1. In 2-way sensitivity analyses, when the drug cost was lowered by 45% and the hazard ratio was below 0.41, the icer fell below $100,000 per qaly gained (Figure 2).

 


 

FIGURE 2 Sensitivity of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) to the hazard ratio and price (per milligram) of brentuximab vedotin. QALY = quality-adjusted life-year.

In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, we simultaneously sampled from distributions defined for all key parameters (Table iii). In all observations, the icer was greater than $50,000 per qaly gained. Approximately 17% of the icers were below the $100,000, 43% were below the $150,000, and 85% were below the $200,000 per qaly gained thresholds [Figure 3(A)]. Brentuximab vedotin treatment becomes equally preferred to best supportive care at a willingness to pay of $162,000 per qaly gained [Figure 3(B)].

TABLE III Model parameters and sources


 

 


 

FIGURE 3 Probabilistic sensitivity analysis: (A) Incremental cost-effectiveness scatter plot. (B) Cost-effectiveness acceptability curve. QALY = quality-adjusted life-year.

DISCUSSION

We developed a decision-analytic model to investigate the cost-effectiveness of brentuximab vedotin compared with best supportive care for the treatment of patients with hl who relapse after asct, from the perspective of the Canadian health care payer. In the base case, brentuximab vedotin resulted in an incremental cost of $89,366 and an incremental effect of 0.544 qalys, corresponding to an icer of $164,248 per qaly gained. That icer estimate is higher than the $100,000 per qaly gained that is often interpreted as having “weak evidence for adoption and appropriate utilization”33. Our estimate is also higher than the icer of $111,752 per qaly gained submitted by the manufacturer in the original submission to the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review21.

The cost-effectiveness of brentuximab vedotin has already been explored in several jurisdictions around the world3438. In the United Kingdom, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence concluded that brentuximab vedotin was not cost-effective at a given price and efficacy39. To the best of our knowledge, our economic analysis is the first Canadian study to use clinical practice data to establish the cost-effectiveness of brentuximab vedotin. In the study, we adapted brentuximab vedotin to the Canadian cancer treatment setting with the aid of both published data and Canadian administrative databases, which makes our analysis different from those in other published international studies.

Targeted therapies in general tend to have high icers. For example, an economic evaluation of adding bevacizumab to paclitaxel and carboplatin for the treatment of ovarian cancer resulted in an icer of $479,712 per life-year gained40. The addition of cetuximab to platinum-based chemotherapy for the first-line treatment of recurrent or metastatic head-and-neck cancer resulted in an icer of $386,000 per qaly gained41. Bevacizumab in combination with paclitaxel in the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic breast cancer yielded an icer of $745,000 per qaly gained42. Denosumab compared with zoledronic acid in the management of skeletal metastases secondary to breast cancer resulted in an icer of $697,499 per qaly gained43.

We conducted pricing scenarios and found that a price reduction of at least 45% would be needed for the icer to reach less than $100,000 per qaly gained. In sensitivity analyses, the icer was sensitive to the hazard ratio resulting from comparing progression-free survivals for brentuximab vedotin and for best supportive care. Considering the challenges of conducting randomized phase iii clinical trials in patients with hl who relapse after asct, the present study provides valuable insight into the cost-effectiveness of brentuximab vedotin based on phase ii data.

At the time that our study was conducted, brentuximab was the only promising treatment option for patients who relapse after asct. As novel drugs with activity in hl become available, one example being the PD-1 inhibitor nivolumab44, the order of salvage treatments for patients in the relapsed and refractory setting could change, which could clearly affect our model.

Our study has several limitations. First, the hazard ratio was based on a comparison of the hazard for a subgroup of patients who received brentuximab vedotin after systemic therapy and the hazard for the same group of patients on the preceding systemic therapy in a nonrandomized phase ii trial; our estimate might therefore have considerable uncertainty, given that the latter setting differs from the setting used in our economic analysis. Second, our definition of progression in the data analysis is a proxy, given that it is based on treatment switch, which might not necessarily reflect a true relapse. In practice, progression is verified by diagnostic procedures such as imaging by computed tomography or positron-emission tomography, and a biopsy. Also, considering that Guadagnolo et al.28 served as the primary source for the utilities, there could be uncertainty in the baseline utility values, which were extensively tested in sensitivity analyses. Finally, like the administrative data used in any study, our data might contain coding errors that could affect the results. One specific example is the lack of chemotherapy treatment reported before asct for 1 of the 77 patients in the ohip database (most likely a fee-for-service code entry error).

CONCLUSIONS

In the base-case scenario, the icer for brentuximab vedotin was $164,248 per qaly gained. That icer might not represent “good value for money” based on commonly accepted cost-effectiveness standards. However, reimbursement decisions must take into account not only the cost, effectiveness, and associated icer of a new treatment, but also other factors such as burden of disease and lack of effective alternative treatment options. A risk-sharing agreement or patient access scheme could help to reduce the cost-per-patient burden to the health care payer and ensure appropriate medical care utilization45.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study was supported through provision of data by the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ices) and Cancer Care Ontario (cco), and through funding support to ices from an annual grant by Ontario’s Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care and the Ontario Institute for Cancer Research (oicr). The opinions, results, and conclusions reported in this paper are those of the authors. No endorsement by ices, cco, the Government of Ontario, or oicr is intended or should be inferred. Parts of this material are based on data and information compiled and provided by the Canadian Institute for Health Information (cihi). However, the analyses, conclusions, opinions, and statements expressed herein are those of the authors and not necessarily those of cihi.

Funding was provided by an academic development grant from Western University. The funding sources had no role in the design or conduct of the study evaluating the cost-effectiveness of brentuximab vedotin; in the collection, management, analysis, or interpretation of the data; or in the preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES

We have read and understood Current Oncology’s policy on disclosing of conflicts of interest, and we declare that we have none.

AUTHOR AFFILIATIONS

*Telfer School of Management, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON;,
Ivey Business School, Western University, London, ON;,
Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, and,
§Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, ON..

REFERENCES

1. Canadian Cancer Society’s Steering Committee on Cancer Statistics. Canadian Cancer Statistics 2012. Toronto, ON: Canadian Cancer Society; 2012.

2. Canellos GP, Anderson JR, Propert KJ, et al. Chemotherapy of advanced Hodgkin’s disease with mopp, abvd, or mopp alternating with abvd. N Engl J Med 1992;327:1478–84.
cross-ref  pubmed  

3. Meyer RM, Gospodarowicz MK, Connors JM, et al. on behalf of the ncic Clinical Trials Group and the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Randomized comparison of abvd chemotherapy with a strategy that includes radiation therapy in patients with limited-stage Hodgkin’s lymphoma: National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group and the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:4634–42.
cross-ref  pubmed  

4. Connors JM. State-of-the-art therapeutics: Hodgkin’s lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:6400–8.
cross-ref  pubmed  

5. Sureda A, Constans M, Iriondo A, et al. on behalf of the Grupo Español de Linfomas/Trasplante Autólogo de Médula Osea Cooperative Group. Prognostic factors affecting long-term outcome after stem cell transplantation in Hodgkin’s lymphoma autografted after a first relapse. Ann Oncol 2005;16:625–33.
cross-ref  pubmed  

6. Vose JM, Bierman PJ, Anderson JR, et al. Progressive disease after high-dose therapy and autologous transplantation for lymphoid malignancy: clinical course and patient follow-up. Blood 1992;80:2142–8.
pubmed  

7. Varterasian M, Ratanatharathorn V, Uberti JP, et al. Clinical course and outcome of patients with Hodgkin’s disease who progress after autologous transplantation. Leuk Lymphoma 1995;20:59–65.
cross-ref  pubmed  

8. Freytes CO, Loberiza FR, Rizzo JD, et al. on behalf of the Lymphoma Working Committee of the International Bone Marrow Transplant Registry. Myeloablative allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in patients who experience relapse after autologous stem cell transplantation for lymphoma: a report of the International Bone Marrow Transplant Registry. Blood 2004;104:3797–803.
cross-ref  pubmed  

9. Armand P, Kim HT, Ho VT, et al. Allogeneic transplantation with reduced-intensity conditioning for Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma: importance of histology for outcome. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2008;14:418–25.
cross-ref  pubmed  pmc  

10. Devizzi L, Santoro A, Bonfante V, et al. Vinorelbine: an active drug for the management of patients with heavily pretreated Hodgkin’s disease. Ann Oncol 1994;5:817–20.
cross-ref  pubmed  

11. Smith SM, van Besien K, Carreras J, et al. Second autologous stem cell transplantation for relapsed lymphoma after a prior autologous transplant. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2008;14:904–12.
cross-ref  pubmed  pmc  

12. Younes A, Gopal AK, Smith SE, et al. Results of a pivotal phase ii study of brentuximab vedotin for patients with relapsed or refractory Hodgkin’s lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 2012;30:2183–9.
cross-ref  pubmed  pmc  

13. Younes A, Bartlett NL, Leonard JP, et al. Brentuximab vedotin (SGN-35) for relapsed CD30-positive lymphomas. N Engl J Med 2010;363:1812–21.
cross-ref  pubmed  

14. Gopal AK, Chen R, Smith SE, et al. Durable remissions in a pivotal phase 2 study of brentuximab vedotin in relapsed or refractory Hodgkin lymphoma. Blood 2015;125:1236–43.
cross-ref  pmc  

15. ADC Review. Brentuximab Vedotin (Adcetris) Clinical Trials [Web resource]. Chandler, AZ: ADCReview.com; 2015. [Available at: http://adcreview.com/brentuximab-vedotin-adcetris-clinical-trials; cited 11 August 2015]

16. Moskowitz CH, Nademanee A, Masszi T, et al. on behalf of the aethera Study Group. Brentuximab vedotin as consolidation therapy after autologous stem-cell transplantation in patients with Hodgkin’s lymphoma at risk of relapse or progression (aethera): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet 2015;385:1853–62.
cross-ref  pubmed  

17. Health Canada, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Biologics and Genetic Therapies Directorate. Adcetris [Web page]. Ottawa, ON: Health Canada; 2016. [Current version available at: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/prodpharma/sbd-smd/drug-med/sbd_smd_2013_adcetris_154851-eng.php; cited 10 January 2016]

18. Pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pcodr), Expert Review Committee. Final Recommendation [for brentuximab vedotin (Adcetris) for Hodgkin lymphoma]. Ottawa, ON: pcodr; 2013. [Available online at: https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/pcodr/pcodr-adcetrishl-fn-rec.pdf; cited 10 January 2016]

19. Cancer Care Ontario (cco). New Drug Funding Program (NDFP) & Evidence Building Program (EBP): Approved Drugs and Eligibility Criteria. Toronto, ON: cco; 2016. [Current version available online at: https://www.cancercare.on.ca/common/pages/UserFile.aspx?fileId=343400; cited 10 January 2016]

20. Santoro A, Bredenfeld H, Devizzi L, et al. Gemcitabine in the treatment of refractory Hodgkin’s disease: results of a multicenter phase ii study. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:2615–19.
cross-ref  pubmed  

21. Pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pcodr), Expert Review Committee. Final Economic Guidance Report: Brentuximab Vedotin (Adcetris) for Hodgkin Lypmhoma. Ottawa, ON: pcodr; 2013. [Available online at: https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/pcodr/pcodr-adcetrishl-fn-egr.pdf; cited 10 January 2016]

22. Canadian Institute for Health Information (cihi). Resource Indicators DAD Resource Intensity Weights and Expected Length of Stay [Web page]. Ottawa, ON: cihi; n.d. [Available at: https://www.cihi.ca/en/data-and-standards/standards/case-mix/resource-indicators-dad-resource-intensity-weights-and; cited 10 January 2016]

23. Swinburn P, Shingler S, Acaster S, Lloyd A, Bonthapally V. Health utilities in relation to treatment response and adverse events in relapsed/refractory Hodgkin lymphoma and systemic anaplastic large cell lymphoma. Leuk Lymphoma 2015;56:1839–45.
cross-ref  

24. Linendoll N, Saunders T, Burns R, et al. Health-related quality of life in Hodgkin lymphoma: a systematic review. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2016;14:114.
cross-ref  pubmed  pmc  

25. Roper K, Cooley ME, McDermott K, Fawcett J. Health-related quality of life after treatment of Hodgkin lymphoma in young adults. Oncol Nurs Forum 2013;40:349–60.
cross-ref  pubmed  

26. Swinburn P, Shingler SL, Kim WS, et al. Health state utilities for relapsed/refractory (Rel/Ref) Hodgkin’s lymphoma (hl) and systemic anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (salcl): Asian Pacific country data [abstract PCN26]. Value Health 2012;15:A657.
cross-ref  

27. Shingler S, Swinburn P, Lloyd A, Bonthapally V. Estimating health state utilities for patients with relapsed/refractory (r/r) Hodgkin lymphoma (hl) and systemic anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (salcl) in Mexico and Brazil [abstract PCN152]. Value Health 2013;16:A419.
cross-ref  

28. Guadagnolo BA, Punglia RS, Kuntz KM, Mauch PM, Ng AK. Cost-effectiveness analysis of computerized tomography in the routine follow-up of patients after primary treatment for Hodgkin’s disease. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:4116–22.
cross-ref  pubmed  

29. Brown RE, Hutton J, Burrell A. Cost effectiveness of treatment options in advanced breast cancer in the UK. Pharmacoeconomics 2001;19:1091–102.
cross-ref  pubmed  

30. Statistics Canada. The Consumer Price Index. Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada; 2010. [Available online at: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/62-001-x/62-001-x2010012-eng.pdf; cited 30 June 2012]

31. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (cadth). Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies: Canada. 3rd ed. Ottawa, ON: cadth; 2006.

32. Mittmann N, Au HJ, Tu D, et al. on behalf of the Working Group on Economic Analysis of ncic Clinical Trials Group and the Australasian Gastrointestinal Interest Group. Prospective cost-effectiveness analysis of cetuximab in metastatic colo rectal cancer: evaluation of National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group co.17 trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009;101:1182–92.
cross-ref  pubmed  

33. Laupacis A, Feeny D, Detsky AS, Tugwell PX. How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. CMAJ 1992;146:473–81.
pubmed  pmc  

34. Ireland, National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics (ncpe). Cost-Effectiveness of Brentuximab Vedotin (Adcetris) for the Treatment of Adult Patients with Relapsed or Refractory CD30 posiTive Hodgkin Lymphoma Who Have Failed at Least One Autologous Stem Cell Transplant. Dublin, Ireland; ncpe; 2014. [Available online at: http://www.ncpe.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Brentuximab-Adcetris-summary.pdf; cited 1 January 2016]

35. Roth JA, Carlson JJ, Ramsey SD. Cost-effectiveness assessment of brentuximab vedotin to prevent progression following autologous stem cell transplant in Hodgkin lymphoma in the United States [abstract]. Blood 2014;124:2657.

36. Engstrom A. The cost-effectiveness of brentuximab vedotin in Hodgkin lymphoma in Sweden [abstract PCN145]. Value Health 2014;17:A639.
cross-ref  

37. Ramsey SD, Roth J, Carlson J. Estimated cost-effectiveness of brentuximab vedotin vs. best supportive care following autologous stem cell transplant in Hodgkin’s lymphoma [abstract 169]. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2015;21(suppl):S146.
cross-ref  

38. Meza-Torres B, Gay JG, Jakouloff DE. Cost-effectiveness evaluation of brentuximab vedotin for refractory/relapsed Hodgkin lymphoma: a comparative analysis of the results of Mexico and Venezuela [abstract PCN132]. Value Health 2014;17:A637.
cross-ref  

39. Taylor P. NICE turns down CDF drug Adcetris in draft guidance. In: PMGroup Worldwide. PMLive [Web resource]. Little Bookham, U.K.: PMGroup Worldwide; 2016. [Available at: https://www.pmlive.com/pharma_news/nice_turns_down_cdf_drug_adcetris_in_draft_guidance_1095016; cited 12 August 2016]

40. Cohn DE, Kim KH, Resnick KE, O’Malley DM, Straughn JM Jr. At what cost does a potential survival advantage of bevacizumab make sense for the primary treatment of ovarian cancer? A cost-effectiveness analysis. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:1247–51.
cross-ref  pubmed  

41. Hannouf MB, Sehgal C, Cao JQ, Mocanu JD, Winquist E, Zaric GS. Cost-effectiveness of adding cetuximab to platinum-based chemotherapy for first-line treatment of recurrent or metastatic head and neck cancer. PLoS One 2012;7:e38557.
cross-ref  pubmed  pmc  

42. Montero AJ, Avancha K, Gluck S, Lopes G. A cost–benefit analysis of bevacizumab in combination with paclitaxel in the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2012;132:747–51.
cross-ref  

43. Snedecor SJ, Carter JA, Kaura S, Botteman MF. Cost-effectiveness of denosumab versus zoledronic acid in the management of skeletal metastases secondary to breast cancer. Clin Ther 2012;34:1334–49.
cross-ref  pubmed  

44. Ansell SM, Lesokhin AM, Borrello I, et al. PD-1 blockade with nivolumab in relapsed or refractory Hodgkin’s lymphoma. N Engl J Med 2015;372:311–19.
cross-ref  

45. Adamski J, Godman B, Ofierska-Sujkowska G, et al. Risk sharing arrangements for pharmaceuticals: potential considerations and recommendations for European payers. BMC Health Serv Res 2010;10:153.
cross-ref  pubmed  pmc  


Correspondence to: Mehmet A. Begen, Ivey Business School, Western University, 1255 Western Road, London, Ontario N6G 0N1. E-mail: mbegen@ivey.uwo.ca

(Return to Top)



Current Oncology, VOLUME 24, NUMBER 1, February 2017








Copyright © 2017 Multimed Inc.
ISSN: 1198-0052 (Print) ISSN: 1718-7729 (Online)