奥滨尤妥珠单抗对比利妥昔单抗生物类似药用于未经治疗的滤泡性淋巴瘤的成本效果分析。
Cost-effectiveness of obinutuzumab versus rituximab biosimilars for previously untreated follicular lymphoma.
机构信息
University of Washington Institute for Public Health Genetics, Seattle.
University of Washington Department of Pharmacy, Seattle.
出版信息
J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2021 May;27(5):615-624. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2021.20424. Epub 2021 Feb 15.
In the randomized phase 3 GALLIUM trial, first-line treatment with obinutuzumab (GA101; G) plus chemotherapy (G + chemo) resulted in superior progression-free survival (PFS) compared with rituximab plus chemotherapy (R + chemo) for patients with follicular lymphoma (FL). G + chemo was found to be cost-effective when compared with R + chemo (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] of approximately $2,300 per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained). Two rituximab biosimilars, rituximab-abbs (Ra) and rituximab-pvvr (Rp), have been approved by the FDA for use in this setting. However, the cost-effectiveness of G + chemo versus Ra + chemo and Rp + chemo has not yet been estimated. To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of G + chemo versus Ra + chemo and Rp + chemo in the first-line treatment of FL. We adapted an existing Markov model that compared G + chemo with R + chemo, using investigator-assessed PFS and postprogression survival data from the GALLIUM trial to model overall survival. All patients in the study received induction chemoimmunotherapy with either G + chemo or R + chemo, with responders then receiving obinutuzumab or rituximab maintenance therapy for 2 years or until disease progression. We assumed that the efficacy and safety of the rituximab biosimilars plus chemotherapy were the same as the R + chemo arm of the GALLIUM study. Drug utilization and treatment duration were also derived from GALLIUM. Health care costs were based on Medicare reimbursements, and drug costs were average sale prices for intravenous therapies or wholesale acquisition costs for oral therapies used after progression. Utility estimates were based on the GALLIUM trial data and published literature. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the key drivers of the model and uncertainty in the results. Treatment with G + chemo led to an increase of 0.93 QALYs relative to rituximab biosimilars plus chemotherapy (95% credible range [CR] = 0.36-1.46). The total cost of G + chemo was $191,317, whereas the total costs of Ra + chemo and Rp + chemo were $164,340 (Δ14.1%) and $169,755 (Δ11.3%), respectively, with G + chemo resulting in incremental costs of $26,978 (95% CR = $19,781-$33,119) and $21,562 (95% CR = $14,473-$28,389), respectively. The incremental total drug and administration costs were $32,678 (Δ25.4%) and $27,263 (Δ21.2%) for G + chemo versus Ra + chemo and G + chemo versus Rp + chemo, respectively. There were cost savings of $7,050 (Δ-12.4%) related to disease progression for G + chemo ($56,727) compared with Ra + chemo and Rp + chemo ($63,777). ICERs were $28,879 and $23,082 per QALY gained for G + chemo versus Ra + chemo and Rp + chemo, respectively. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, G + chemo was cost-effective at the $50,000 and $100,000 per QALY thresholds versus both Ra + chemo (88% and 98% probabilities of cost-effectiveness, respectively) and Rp + chemo (93% and 98%, respectively). G + chemo is projected to be cost-effective versus rituximab biosimilars plus chemotherapy in the United States as first-line treatment for FL, driven by increased QALYs for G + chemo and cost savings from delayed disease progression. This study was funded by Genentech, a member of the Roche Group. The study sponsor was involved in study design, data interpretation, and writing of the report. All authors approved the decision to submit the report for publication. Spencer and Guzauskas report fees from Genentech during the conduct of the study. Felizzi was employed by F. Hoffmann-La Roche at the time this study was conducted; Launonen is an employees of F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Felizzi and Launonen previously had share ownership in Novartis. Dawson and Masaquel are employees of Genentech, and they have stock options in F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Veenstra reports fees from Genentech, during the conduct of this study and outside of the submitted work. This work was presented, in part, at the AACR Virtual Meeting Advances in Malignant Lymphoma meeting (virtual; August 17-19, 2020) and the SOHO annual meeting (virtual; September 9-12, 2020).
在随机 3 期 GALLIUM 试验中,奥滨尤妥珠单抗(GA101;G)联合化疗(G+化疗)一线治疗滤泡性淋巴瘤(FL)患者的无进展生存期(PFS)优于利妥昔单抗联合化疗(R+化疗)。与 R+化疗相比,G+化疗具有成本效益(增量成本效益比[ICER]约为每获得 1 个质量调整生命年[QALY]增加约 2300 美元)。两种利妥昔单抗生物类似药,利妥昔单抗-abbs(Ra)和利妥昔单抗-pvvr(Rp),已被 FDA 批准用于该治疗环境。然而,G+化疗与 Ra+化疗和 Rp+化疗的成本效益尚未得到评估。为评估 G+化疗与 Ra+化疗和 Rp+化疗在 FL 一线治疗中的成本效益。我们采用了一种现有的 Markov 模型,该模型比较了 G+化疗与 R+化疗,使用研究者评估的 PFS 和 GALLIUM 试验的无进展生存数据来模拟总体生存。研究中的所有患者均接受 G+化疗或 R+化疗诱导化疗免疫治疗,应答者随后接受奥滨尤妥珠单抗或利妥昔单抗维持治疗 2 年或直至疾病进展。我们假设利妥昔单抗生物类似药加化疗的疗效和安全性与 GALLIUM 研究的 R+化疗组相同。药物的利用和治疗持续时间也来自 GALLIUM。医疗保健成本基于医疗保险报销,药物成本是静脉治疗的平均销售价格或用于进展后口服治疗的批发收购成本。效用估计基于 GALLIUM 试验数据和已发表的文献。进行敏感性分析以评估模型的关键驱动因素和结果的不确定性。与利妥昔单抗生物类似药加化疗相比,G+化疗可增加 0.93 个 QALY(95%可信区间[CR]=0.36-1.46)。G+化疗的总费用为 191317 美元,而 Ra+化疗和 Rp+化疗的总费用分别为 164340 美元(Δ14.1%)和 169755 美元(Δ11.3%),G+化疗的增量成本分别为 26978 美元(95%CR=19781-33119)和 21562 美元(95%CR=14473-28389)。G+化疗与 Ra+化疗和 G+化疗与 Rp+化疗相比,增量总药物和管理成本分别为 32678 美元(Δ25.4%)和 27263 美元(Δ21.2%)。与 Ra+化疗和 Rp+化疗相比,G+化疗的疾病进展相关成本节约为 7050 美元(Δ-12.4%)(63777 美元)。G+化疗与 Ra+化疗和 Rp+化疗的增量成本效益比(ICER)分别为 28879 美元和 23082 美元/获得的 QALY。在概率敏感性分析中,G+化疗在 50000 美元和 100000 美元/QALY 的阈值下,相对于 Ra+化疗(分别为 88%和 98%的成本效益概率)和 Rp+化疗(分别为 93%和 98%),具有成本效益。在这项研究中,G+化疗在美国被预测为利妥昔单抗生物类似药加化疗的一线治疗方案具有成本效益,这主要是由于 G+化疗的 QALYs 增加和疾病进展延迟的成本节约。这项研究由罗氏集团旗下的基因泰克公司资助。研究赞助商参与了研究设计、数据解释和报告的编写。所有作者都批准了提交报告进行发表的决定。Spencer 和 Guzauskas 在研究期间从基因泰克获得报酬。Felizzi 在进行这项研究时受雇于 Hoffmann-La Roche;Launonen 是 Hoffmann-La Roche 的前股东。Felizzi 和 Launonen 曾拥有诺华公司的股份。Dawson 和 Masaquel 是基因泰克的员工,他们拥有 Hoffmann-La Roche 的股票期权。Veenstra 在进行这项研究期间以及在提交的工作之外,从基因泰克获得报酬。这项工作的部分内容在 AACR 虚拟会议恶性淋巴瘤进展会议(虚拟会议;2020 年 8 月 17 日至 19 日)和 SOHO 年会(虚拟会议;2020 年 9 月 9 日至 12 日)上进行了介绍。
相似文献
J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2021-5
J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2021-8
引用本文的文献
本文引用的文献
N Engl J Med. 2017-12-28
N Engl J Med. 2017-10-5
N Engl J Med. 2014-8-28