ArticleHealth economics review2024
Cost-effectiveness of brentuximab vedotin compared with conventional chemotherapy for relapsed or refractory classic Hodgkin lymphoma in China.
Article in Health economics review, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nivolumab-AVD versus Brentuximab Vedotin-AVD as First-Line Treatment for Advanced-Stage Classical Hodgkin Lymphoma: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2026Article
- Early assessment of therapeutic efficacy in lymphoma patients via a blood-based multi-omics response monitoring test.BMC cancer · 2025Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of First-Line Zuberitamab-CHOP versus Rituximab-CHOP Regimens in Untreated CD20+ Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma in China.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRelapsed or refractory classic Hodgkin lymphoma (RRcHL) associates with poor prognosis and heavy disease burden to patients. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of brentuximab vedotin (BV) in comparison to conventional chemotherapy in patients with RRcHL, from a Chinese healthcare perspective.
methodsThe lifetime cost and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated through a partitioned survival model with three health states (progression free, post progression, and death). Two cohorts for each BV arm and chemotherapy arm were built, representing patients with and without transplant after BV or chemotherapy, respectively. Clinical parameters were retrieved from BV trials and the literature. Resource utilization data were mainly collected from local expert surveys and cost parameters were reflecting local unit prices. Utility values were sourced from the literature. A discount rate of 5% was employed according to the Chinese guideline. A series of deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the robustness and uncertainty associated with the model.
resultsResults of the base case analysis showed that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for BV versus chemotherapy was $2,867 (¥19,774). The main model driver was the superior progression-free and overall survival benefits of BV. The ICERs were relatively robust in a series of sensitivity analyses, all under a conventional decision threshold (1 time of Chinese per capita GDP). With this conventional threshold, the probability of BV being cost-effective was 100%.
conclusionsBrentuximab vedotin can be considered a cost-effective treatment versus conventional chemotherapy in treating relapsed or refractory classic Hodgkin lymphoma in China.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.