ArticleRisk management and healthcare policy2025
Cost-Effectiveness of First-Line Zuberitamab-CHOP versus Rituximab-CHOP Regimens in Untreated CD20+ Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma in China.
Article in Risk management and healthcare policy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing zuberitamab combined with CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone; Hi-CHOP) versus rituximab combined with CHOP (R-CHOP) as first-line therapy for previously untreated CD20-positive diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients in China. Patients and Methods: A partitioned survival model (PSM) was developed to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of Hi-CHOP versus R-CHOP regimens in newly diagnosed CD20-positive DLBCL patients. The study utilized a 20-year time frame. Evaluated outcomes included overall survival (OS), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), total treatment costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was defined as $40,334.05 per QALY, equivalent to triple China's 2024 per capita GDP. Results: The base-case analysis indicated that Hi-CHOP provided an additional 1.49 life-years and 1.57 QALYs compared to R-CHOP. The total treatment cost of Hi-CHOP was $238,164.77 higher than that of R-CHOP over 20 years, resulting in ICERs of $151,373.19 per QALY and $160,273.99 per life-year. One-way sensitivity analysis (OSA) identified progression-free survival (PFS) utility as the most significant parameter impacting model outcomes. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) demonstrated that almost all simulated outcomes surpassed the WTP threshold. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) demonstrated R-CHOP's superior cost-effectiveness probability relative to Hi-CHOP across a WTP range from $0 to $150,000. Conclusion: Given that Hi-CHOP is not cost-effective at conventional WTP thresholds, a substantial price reduction or unnecessary procedures, and optimizing clinical workflows for Hi-CHOP would be necessary to make it an economically viable first-line option for DLBCL compared to R-CHOP.
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.