The Lancet. Global health · 2021
Comparison of best supportive care, CHOP, or R-CHOP for treatment of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in Malawi: a cost-effectiveness analysis.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Painschab Matthew S, Kohler Racquel, Kimani Stephen, Mhango Wilberforce, Kaimila Bongani, Zuze Takondwa, Mithi Victor, Kasonkanji Edwards, Mumba Noel, Nyasosela Richard, Wheeler Stephanie, Gopal Satish
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Cost-effectiveness data for cancer treatment are needed from sub-Saharan Africa, where diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is a common, curable cancer. In high-income countries, the standard of care for DLBCL is R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) chemoimmunotherapy. Rituximab is often not available in sub-Saharan Africa due to perceived unaffordability, and treatment with CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) is common. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of treatment in Malawi, comparing best supportive care, CHOP, or R-CHOP in patients with DLBCL.
METHODS: For this cost-effectiveness analysis, we used published Malawi microcosting data, clinical data from a prospective cohort treated with CHOP, and clinical trial data evaluating R-CHOP. We used a decision-tree model to calculate costs per disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) averted from the health system perspective for the treatment of patients with DLBCL with best supportive care, CHOP, or R-CHOP, running the model on a per-patient basis and a Malawi population-level basis. We used the WHO definitions of cost-effective (three times the GDP per capita of the country) and extremely cost-effective (equal to the GDP per capita of the country) as willingness-to-pay thresholds for Malawi.
FINDINGS: On a per-patient level, compared with best supportive care, CHOP was estimated to avert a mean 7·4 DALYs at an incremental cost of US$1384, for an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $189 per DALY averted, which is substantially lower than the willingness-to-pay threshold (extremely cost-effective). Compared with CHOP, R-CHOP was estimated to avert 2·8 DALYs at an incremental cost of $3324, resulting in an ICER of $1204 per DALY averted, which is slightly higher than the cost-effective willingness-to-pay threshold. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, CHOP remained cost-effective for DLBCL treatment in more than 99% of simulations, whereas R-CHOP was lower than the threshold in 46% of simulations.
INTERPRETATION: We estimated CHOP to be cost-effective for DLBCL treatment in Malawi, and that the addition of rituximab might be cost-effective. Despite upfront costs, DLBCL treatment is probably a prudent investment relative to other accepted health interventions in sub-Saharan Africa.
FUNDING: National Institutes of Health.
METHODS: For this cost-effectiveness analysis, we used published Malawi microcosting data, clinical data from a prospective cohort treated with CHOP, and clinical trial data evaluating R-CHOP. We used a decision-tree model to calculate costs per disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) averted from the health system perspective for the treatment of patients with DLBCL with best supportive care, CHOP, or R-CHOP, running the model on a per-patient basis and a Malawi population-level basis. We used the WHO definitions of cost-effective (three times the GDP per capita of the country) and extremely cost-effective (equal to the GDP per capita of the country) as willingness-to-pay thresholds for Malawi.
FINDINGS: On a per-patient level, compared with best supportive care, CHOP was estimated to avert a mean 7·4 DALYs at an incremental cost of US$1384, for an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $189 per DALY averted, which is substantially lower than the willingness-to-pay threshold (extremely cost-effective). Compared with CHOP, R-CHOP was estimated to avert 2·8 DALYs at an incremental cost of $3324, resulting in an ICER of $1204 per DALY averted, which is slightly higher than the cost-effective willingness-to-pay threshold. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, CHOP remained cost-effective for DLBCL treatment in more than 99% of simulations, whereas R-CHOP was lower than the threshold in 46% of simulations.
INTERPRETATION: We estimated CHOP to be cost-effective for DLBCL treatment in Malawi, and that the addition of rituximab might be cost-effective. Despite upfront costs, DLBCL treatment is probably a prudent investment relative to other accepted health interventions in sub-Saharan Africa.
FUNDING: National Institutes of Health.