ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2025
Cost-effectiveness analysis of glofitamab versus rituximab for relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients in China.
Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe CD20 × CD3 bispecific antibody glofitamab combined with gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (Glofit-GemOx) has demonstrated clinical efficacy in treating relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).
aimThe aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Glofit-GemOx versus R-GemOx for relapsed or refractory DLBCL patients following one or more previous lines of therapy from the perspective of healthcare in China.
methodA three-state partitioned survival model was constructed based on the STARGLO study to assess the cost-effectiveness of Glofit-GemOx versus rituximab-GemOx (R-GemOx). Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were used as health outcomes, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated. One-way deterministic sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed on key parameters to assess the robustness of the base analysis results.
resultsThe costs in Glofit-GemOx regimen were $266,518.83, whereas the costs of R-GemOx regimen were $43,227.09. Compared with the R-GemOx regimen, the Glofit-GemOx regimen resulted in an increase of 0.85 QALYs, yielding an ICER of $262,696.16 per QALY. The ICER significantly exceeded the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $38,188/QALY and sensitivity analysis revealed the cost of glofitamab had a substantial effect on results.
conclusionCompared with R-GemOx, Glofit-GemOx is not cost-effective compared for relapsed or refractory DLBCL patients in China at current price. A negotiated price reduction for glofitamab could substantially improve its cost-effectiveness profile.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40293642What 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.