Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36057890›Full record

ArticlePharmacoEconomics - open2022

Brentuximab Vedotin Plus CHP in Frontline sALCL: Adjusted Estimates of Efficacy and Cost-Effectiveness Removing the Effects of Re-Treatment with Brentuximab Vedotin.

Holly Cranmer, David Trueman, Elise Evers, Fionn Woodcock, Tanja Podkonjak

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PharmacoEconomics - open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01777152 (A Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled, Phase 3 Study of Brentuximab Vedotin and CHP), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 38% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT01777152 phase3completednot on this map

A Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled, Phase 3 Study of Brentuximab Vedotin and CHP (A+CHP) Versus CHOP in the Frontline Treatment of Patients With CD30-positive Mature T-cell Lymphomas

TypeinterventionalSponsorSeagen Inc.Ran2013 to 2020Enrolled452ConditionsAnaplastic Large-Cell Lymphoma, Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma, T-Cell LymphomaArmsbrentuximab vedotin, doxorubicin, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Global & regional health technology assessment
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Holly CranmerTakeda UK Limited, London, UK.
David TruemanSource Health Economics, London, UK.
Elise EversSource Health Economics, London, UK.
Fionn WoodcockSource Health Economics, London, UK.
Tanja PodkonjakTakeda Pharmaceuticals International AG, Zurich, Switzerland. Tanja.Podkonjak@takeda.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7870-9939
Office Of Health Economics · GBTakeda (Switzerland) · CHTakeda (United Kingdom) · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the randomised controlled trial ECHELON-2 (NCT01777152; January 2013), brentuximab vedotin (BV) plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin and prednisone (CHP) demonstrated improved efficacy compared with CHOP (CHP and vincristine) in frontline CD30+ peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL), an aggressive cancer with poor survival. In ECHELON-2, 70% of patients had systemic anaplastic large cell lymphoma (sALCL), a subtype of PTCL. Of sALCL patients who progressed from BV+CHP and CHOP, 36% (n = 17) and 56% (n = 36) received subsequent BV-containing therapy, respectively. As BV re-treatment was not funded in England at the time, our objective was to estimate adjusted efficacy and cost-effectiveness by excluding BV re-treatment from BV+CHP.

methodsTo remove the effects of BV re-treatment, the inverse probability of censoring weights (IPCW) and two-stage estimator (TSE) approaches, with and without re-censoring, were applied to overall survival (OS) in the BV+CHP arm of the ECHELON-2 sALCL population. Cost-effectiveness was determined in a three-state partitioned survival (PartSA) model from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) in England.

resultsThe unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) for death in patients with sALCL with BV+CHP versus CHOP was 0.54 (95% CI 0.34, 0.87; p = 0.011). The model base case used TSE analysis without re-censoring, which provided an adjusted HR for death of 0.55 (95% CI 0.33, 0.86; p = 0.014). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) including and excluding re-treatment with BV were £29,760/QALY and £27,761/QALY, respectively.

conclusionTSE without re-censoring provided the most clinically plausible estimate of survival whilst retaining sufficient information for OS extrapolation. After adjustment for BV re-treatment, BV+CHP remains an efficacious and cost-effective treatment in frontline sALCL compared with CHOP.

Identifiers

PMID36057890
PMCPMC9596633
OpenAlexW4294557487

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.