Scholarlink

Objective <p>The HD21 trial demonstrated efficacy and safety of brentuximab vedotin, etoposide, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, dacarbazine, and dexamethasone (BrECADD) vs. bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone (eBEACOPP) as frontline therapy for advanced-stage, classical Hodgkin lymphoma. This analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness of BrECADD from a US healthcare payer perspective.</p> Methods <p>Building upon a multicenter, randomized, open-label phase 3 HD21 trial (NCT02661503) that evaluated BrECADD versus eBEACOPP in advanced-stage, classical Hodgkin lymphoma patients, we constructed a Markov model with 3-week cycles over a 50-year horizon. The model’s primary outcomes encompassed total costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, with all economic parameters discounted at 3.0% annually. Cost-utility analyses employed a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY, supplemented by comprehensive sensitivity and scenario analyses to verify model robustness.</p> Results <p>Economic evaluation demonstrated that compared to eBEACOPP, the BrECADD regimen yielded an additional 2.24 QALYs at an incremental cost of $113,134.17, producing an ICER of $50,411.69/QALY, substantially below the $100,000 WTP threshold. One-way sensitivity analysis identified BrECADD drug acquisition costs and health state utility values as the predominant model drivers; all ICERs remained below the $100,000 WTP threshold across the plausible ranges of all parameters. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY, BrECADD was cost-effective compared to eBEACOPP in 100% of 1000 Monte Carlo iterations. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve demonstrated that BrECADD achieved a greater than 50% probability of being cost-effective at WTP thresholds above approximately $55,000 per QALY.</p> Conclusions <p>BrECADD can be considered a cost-effective treatment versus eBEACOPP in treating advanced-stage, classical Hodgkin lymphoma in America.</p> Clinical trial number <p>Not applicable.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Cost-effectiveness analysis of PET-guided BrECADD with chemotherapy in advanced-stage, classical Hodgkin lymphoma

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年6月16日

查看全文
  • Guihao Zeng,
  • Bikun Cai,
  • Hui Zhang,
  • Yuhang Liu,
  • Haonan Li

摘要

Objective

The HD21 trial demonstrated efficacy and safety of brentuximab vedotin, etoposide, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, dacarbazine, and dexamethasone (BrECADD) vs. bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone (eBEACOPP) as frontline therapy for advanced-stage, classical Hodgkin lymphoma. This analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness of BrECADD from a US healthcare payer perspective.

Methods

Building upon a multicenter, randomized, open-label phase 3 HD21 trial (NCT02661503) that evaluated BrECADD versus eBEACOPP in advanced-stage, classical Hodgkin lymphoma patients, we constructed a Markov model with 3-week cycles over a 50-year horizon. The model’s primary outcomes encompassed total costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, with all economic parameters discounted at 3.0% annually. Cost-utility analyses employed a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY, supplemented by comprehensive sensitivity and scenario analyses to verify model robustness.

Results

Economic evaluation demonstrated that compared to eBEACOPP, the BrECADD regimen yielded an additional 2.24 QALYs at an incremental cost of $113,134.17, producing an ICER of $50,411.69/QALY, substantially below the $100,000 WTP threshold. One-way sensitivity analysis identified BrECADD drug acquisition costs and health state utility values as the predominant model drivers; all ICERs remained below the $100,000 WTP threshold across the plausible ranges of all parameters. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY, BrECADD was cost-effective compared to eBEACOPP in 100% of 1000 Monte Carlo iterations. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve demonstrated that BrECADD achieved a greater than 50% probability of being cost-effective at WTP thresholds above approximately $55,000 per QALY.

Conclusions

BrECADD can be considered a cost-effective treatment versus eBEACOPP in treating advanced-stage, classical Hodgkin lymphoma in America.

Clinical trial number

Not applicable.