Cost-effectiveness of brentuximab vedotin plus chemotherapy for previously untreated CD30-positive peripheral T-cell lymphoma in Canada

Aims To support reimbursement requests in Canada, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of brentuximab vedotin (Adcetris) in combination with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (A + CHP) compared with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP) as frontline treatment for CD30-expressing peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCLs) using results from the ECHELON-2 clinical trial. The PTCL subtypes included were systemic anaplastic large cell lymphoma (sALCL), PTCL-not otherwise specified (PTCL-NOS), and angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL). Materials and methods A partitioned survival model consisting of three health states (progression-free survival [PFS], post-progression survival [PPS], and death) was constructed from the perspective of the Canadian publicly funded healthcare system over a lifetime horizon. Efficacy, safety, and health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) data were obtained from ECHELON-2. Medical resource use and costs were derived from Canadian literature and standard sources. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained were calculated. Sensitivity analyses were performed to account for uncertainty in key parameters. All costs are reported in Canadian dollars. Results A + CHP, when compared with CHOP, was associated with an estimated mean gain of 2.90 LYs and 2.38 QALYs and a mean incremental cost of $76,491. The ICER for A + CHP compared with CHOP was estimated at $26,340 per LY gained and $32,177 per QALY gained. In sensitivity analyses, the ICERs remained below $60,000 per QALY gained. Time horizon, patient starting age, and discount rate affected the results, as the ICER was driven by long-term survival gains observed with A + CHP compared with CHOP. Limitations Real-world downstream treatments (such as stem cell transplantation) may differ from the treatment protocol followed in the ECHELON-2 trial. Conclusions A + CHP compared with CHOP provides a cost-effective treatment option with improved clinical outcomes that are clinically relevant and a comparable safety profile for adults with previously untreated CD30-expressing sALCL, PTCL-NOS, or AITL in Canada.