ABSTRACT
Introduction
Efficacy of lenalidomide plus rituximab (R-LEN) compared to rituximab monotherapy (R-mono) for patients with previously treated follicular lymphoma (FL) was investigated in AUGMENT (NCT01938001). Our aim was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of R-LEN versus R-mono in this setting from a Dutch perspective.
Areas covered
Cost-effectiveness was assessed through a partitioned survival model from three perspectives (i.e. societal, healthcare, and societal, including future non-medical costs). Patient-level data from AUGMENT informed effectiveness parameters (i.e. long-term survival) and health state utilities. Resource use and prices were based on AUGMENT and the literature. Clinical experts validated efficacy input parameters and results. Uncertainty was explored through sensitivity and scenario analyses.
Expert opinion
R-LEN resulted in 1.7 incremental discounted quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Total incremental discounted costs were 67,161 EUR from a societal perspective. In conclusion, R-LEN was cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of 50,000 EUR/QALY in the base-case analyses(incremental cost-effectiveness ratio = 40,493 EUR/QALY). Scenario and sensitivity analyses indicated some level of uncertainty regarding this conclusion, depending on the chosen WTP-threshold and perspective.
Declaration of interest
FW Thielen reports unrestricted grants from Celgene B.V., during the conduct of the study, FW Thielen took part in a consultation with AstraZeneca on a reimbursement dossier for a treatment and disease indication unrelated to this study, and his institution was reimbursed for time spent on the consultation. MJ Kersten reports grants and personal fees from Celgene/BMS, grants and personal fees from Roche, during the conduct of the study.
CA Uyl-de Groot and HM Blommestein both received unrestricted grants from Celgene BV during the conduct of study.
The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.
Reviewer disclosures
Peer reviewers on this manuscript have no relevant financial or other relationships to disclose.
Supplementary material
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here.