Impact of Different Thresholds on Recommendations Made Through Cost-Effectiveness Studies: An Example From Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia

Impact of Different Thresholds on Recommendations Made Through Cost-Effectiveness Studies: An Example From Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia

Objectives
This study aims to demonstrate the impact of different cost-effectiveness thresholds (λ) on the recommendation of technologies in cost-effectiveness analyses worldwide.
Methods
Structured electronic searches of Medline, Lilacs, Center for Reviews and Dissemination, Cochrane Library, and Embase were conducted to identify pharmacoeconomic analyses that compared chemotherapy+rituximab (CT+R) with chemotherapy alone (CT). The Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios (ICERs) were extracted from the publications, converted to PPP-USD for the analysis year, and compared to various values of λ. The values of λ were chosen to represent a variety of approaches from around the world: (i) λ in the country of the analysis, if available; (ii) 50,000 USD/QALY; (iii) the opportunity costs threshold (κ); (iv) 3, 2, and 1 GDP per capita/QALY.
Results
CT+R was dominated in the comparison between ibrutinib+rituximab (IR) and ibrutinib (I) and not cost-effective in the comparison between bendamustine+rituximab (BR) and bendamustine (B). Excluding these, only two other comparisons were found in 17 studies: fludarabine+cyclophosphamide+rituximab (FCR) vs. fludarabine+cyclophosphamide (FC) and clorambucil+rituximab (ClbR) vs. clorambucil (Clb). Two studies did not measure the outcomes in QALYs. All other studies (N=15) considered the technology cost-effective at 3 GPD per capita/QALY. At 2 GDP per capita/QALY, 1/15 studies did not recommend CT+R. At 1 GPD per capita/QALY, 7/15 studies did not suggest CT+R. In countries where an explicit threshold exists, CT+R was considered cost-effective. At the 50,000 USD/QALY threshold, only 1/15 studies did not find the technology to be cost-effective. Only two studies recommended listing rituximab at κ.
Conclusions
Regarding FCR vs. FC and ClbR vs. Clb, the combination of rituximab is considered cost-effective under most typically accepted thresholds. Nevertheless, the approach taken by regulators on the threshold might change the recommendation’s direction.

Files associated with this item cannot be displayed due to copyright restrictions.