Adding rituximab to chemotherapy for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients in Indonesia: a cost utility and budget impact analysis

Table 1 Parameters included in economic model

Parameters	R-CHOP	CHOP	Distribution	Source
Transition probabilities^a
Progression free to death	0.004		Beta	WHO Life table
Progression free to progressive	0.370		Beta	GELA trial
Progressive to death	0.001		Beta	GELA trial
Efficacy
RR Progression Free	0.55		Log normal	GELA trial
RR Progressive	0.53		Log normal	GELA trial
Costs (in USD)
*Direct medical costs (DMC)* ^b
Progression Free	431,4 ± 292,0	368,5 ± 389,0	Gamma	Hospital billing
Progressive	534,5 ± 134,0	368,5 ± 389,0	Gamma	Hospital billing
*Drug costs (DC)*
Progression Free_Rituximab	643,0 ± 79,0		Gamma	Patient interviews
Progressive_Rituximab	563,4 ± 134,0		Gamma	Patient interviews
Progression Free_CHOP	50,7 ± 7,0		Gamma	Patient interviews
Progressive_CHOP	50,7 ± 7,0		Gamma	Patient interviews
*Direct non-medical costs (DNMC)* ^c
Progression Free	86,8 ± 102,0	86,8 ± 102,0	Gamma	Patient interviews
Progressive	331,9 ± 328,0	331,9 ± 328,0	Gamma	Patient interviews
*Indirect costs (IC)*^d
Progression Free	144,2 ± 204,0	144,2 ± 204,0	Gamma	Patient interviews
Progressive	38,2 ± 19,0	38,2 ± 19,0	Gamma	Patient interviews
Utility
Progression Free	0.74 ± 0.23		Gamma	Patient interviews
Progressive	0.48 ± 0.26		Gamma	Patient interviews
Discount rate
Costs	3%		NA	HTA national guideline
Effect	3%		NA	HTA national guideline

^aWe adjusted and converted PFS and OS for transitional probabilities that fit into our model cycles and life time horizon (see supplemental material)
^bdirect medical costs assumed similar with progression free state
^cdirect non-medical costs are assumed similar with R-CHOP group
^dindirect costs are assumed similar with R-CHOP group. In progressive state, very few patients use ICE with Rituximab

ISSN: 1472-6963