A Systematic Review of Economic Analyses Studying Rituximab in R-CHOP Therapy in Patients with Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma
Jenna L. Yoder1, Khalid M. Kamal*, 2
Identifiers and Pagination:Year: 2009
First Page: 1
Last Page: 9
Publisher Id: TOCIJ-2-1
Article History:Received Date: 18/02/2009
Revision Received Date: 15/05/2009
Acceptance Date: 27/05/2009
Electronic publication date: 18/9/2009
Collection year: 2009
open-access license: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License (CC-BY 4.0), a copy of which is available at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
To explore the use of pharmacoeconomic principles through examination of economic evaluations pertaining to the combination of the monoclonal antibody rituximab with conventional CHOP (cyclophosphamide/doxorubicin/ vincristine/ prednisone) or CHOP-like chemotherapy regimens in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
A literature search was conducted using Evidence-Based Medical Reviews (EBMR), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (IPA), and Medline databases to identify all economic studies relating to rituximab in combination with CHOP or CHOP-like regimens. The systematic evaluation also utilized the Quality of Health Economic Studies instrument to assess the quality of each study that was included in the final review.
Initially, eight studies were retrieved which included the use of rituximab in non-Hodgkin lymphoma treatment. Of these, four studies were excluded as rituximab was used as a stand-alone treatment option. The remaining four studies involved conventional CHOP therapy versus the combination with rituximab (R-CHOP) in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma. One study employed a cost-effectiveness analysis while the remaining three studies used a cost-utility analysis and reported the outcomes in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).
The cost-effectiveness evaluation illustrated the dominance of R-CHOP over CHOP-alone in terms of both lower costs and increased life years gained. The cost-utility of R-CHOP in terms of costs/QALYs were below the accepted threshold of 50,000 in international monetary units. Through examination of evaluation principles employed, it is found that valid results are highly dependent on the input data, assumptions, and sensitivity analyses. Clinical decisionmakers must take into account specific inclusions of costs relevant to their own practice setting.