US cost-effectiveness analysis of polatuzumab vedotin in previously untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma

Abstract

Aims: We evaluated the pharmacoeconomic value of polatuzumab vedotin plus rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (Pola-R-CHP) in previously untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) versus rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP). Materials and methods: A 3-state partitioned survival model was used to estimate life years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and cost impacts of Pola-R-CHP versus R-CHOP. Analyses utilized mixture-cure survival modelling, assessed a lifetime horizon, discounted all outcomes at 3% per year, and examined both payer and societal perspectives. Progression-free survival, overall survival (OS), drug utilization, treatment duration, adverse reactions, and subsequent treatment inputs were based on data from the POLARIX study (NCT03274492). Costs included drug acquisition/administration, adverse reaction management, routine care, subsequent treatments, end-of-life care, and work productivity. Results: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of Pola-R-CHP versus R-CHOP were $70,719/QALY gained and $88,855/QALY gained from societal and payer perspectives, respectively. The $32,824 higher total cost of Pola-R-CHP versus R-CHOP was largely due to higher drug costs ($122,525 vs $27,694), with cost offsets including subsequent treatment (–$52,765), routine care (–$1,781), end-of-life care (–$383), and work productivity (–$8,418). Pola-R-CHP resulted in an increase of 0.47 LYs and 0.46 QALYs versus R-CHOP. Pola-R-CHP was cost-effective in 60.9% and 58.0% of simulations at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/QALY gained from societal and payer perspectives, respectively. Limitations: There was uncertainty around the OS extrapolation in the model, and costs were derived from different sources. Recommended prophylactic medications were not included; prophylactic use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for all patients was assumed to be equal across treatment arms in POLARIX. Work productivity loss was estimated from a general population and was not specific to patients with DLBCL. Conclusion: Pola-R-CHP was projected to be cost-effective versus R-CHOP in previously untreated DLBCL, suggesting that Pola-R-CHP represents good value relative to R-CHOP in this setting.