COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS OF GLOFITAMAB PLUS GEMCITABINE AND OXALIPLATIN FOR THE SECOND-LINE TREATMENT OF AUTOLOGOUS STEM CELL TRANSPLANT INELIGIBLE RELAPSED/REFRACTORY DLBCL FROM A UK HEALTHCARE SYSTEM PERSPECTIVETRANSPLANT INELIGIBLE...
Author(s)
Stephen Bradley, MSc1, Hazal Celik, MSc2, Will Roberts, BSc1, Ricky Trigg, PhD1, Megan Lewis, MSc1.
1Roche Products Ltd, Welwyn Garden City, United Kingdom, 2F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Basel, Switzerland.
1Roche Products Ltd, Welwyn Garden City, United Kingdom, 2F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Basel, Switzerland.
OBJECTIVES: The STARGLO study demonstrated that glofitamab in combination with gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (Glofit-GemOx) provided an overall survival benefit over rituximab plus GemOx (R-GemOx) (NCT04408638) in relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (R/R DLBCL).To align with the greatest area of unmet clinical need, this analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness of Glofit-GemOx versus currently available treatments for second-line R/R DLBCL in patients who are ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) (R-GemOx and polatuzumab plus bendamustine and rituximab [PolaBR]) from the UK healthcare system perspective.
METHODS: A partitioned survival model was developed over a lifetime horizon. Clinical parameters were obtained from the STARGLO study for the comparison to R-GemOx. An indirect treatment comparison was conducted with PolaBR, using individual patient data from the second-line cohort of the GO29365 study (NCT02257567). Survival curves were extrapolated, with patients remaining progression-free after 3 years entering long-term remission. Costs were derived from previous NICE technology appraisals in R/R DLBCL. Utilities were obtained from the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire from the STARGLO study, which were mapped to the 3L value set. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5% as per the NICE reference case. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) and scenario analyses were conducted
RESULTS: Glofit-GemOx increases QALYs by 2.29 and 1.33, and costs by £42,808 and £14,574 versus R-GemOx and PolaBR, respectively. List price ICERs were £18,711 and £10,967, which were below the NICE threshold of £30,000 that was considered for this appraisal. The results remained robust with the PSA: the probability of Glofit-GemOx being cost-effective versus R-GemOx and PolaBR at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,0000 was 98% and 95%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Glofit-GemOx is a cost-effective option for R/R DLBCL patients who have received one prior line of therapy and are ineligible for ASCT.
METHODS: A partitioned survival model was developed over a lifetime horizon. Clinical parameters were obtained from the STARGLO study for the comparison to R-GemOx. An indirect treatment comparison was conducted with PolaBR, using individual patient data from the second-line cohort of the GO29365 study (NCT02257567). Survival curves were extrapolated, with patients remaining progression-free after 3 years entering long-term remission. Costs were derived from previous NICE technology appraisals in R/R DLBCL. Utilities were obtained from the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire from the STARGLO study, which were mapped to the 3L value set. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5% as per the NICE reference case. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) and scenario analyses were conducted
RESULTS: Glofit-GemOx increases QALYs by 2.29 and 1.33, and costs by £42,808 and £14,574 versus R-GemOx and PolaBR, respectively. List price ICERs were £18,711 and £10,967, which were below the NICE threshold of £30,000 that was considered for this appraisal. The results remained robust with the PSA: the probability of Glofit-GemOx being cost-effective versus R-GemOx and PolaBR at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,0000 was 98% and 95%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Glofit-GemOx is a cost-effective option for R/R DLBCL patients who have received one prior line of therapy and are ineligible for ASCT.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2026-11, ISPOR Europe 2026, Vienna, Austria
Value in Health, Volume 29, Issue 12S
Code
EE546
Topic
Economic Evaluation, Health Technology Assessment
Disease
Oncology