ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2025
Cost-effectiveness of HLX01 (Hanlikang
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of Hanlikang (HLX01), a biosimilar of rituximab, compared to rituximab (MabThera), both combined with the cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP) regimen, for treatment-naive diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients. With biosimilars becoming more prominent in oncology, understanding their economic impact is crucial for optimizing treatment strategies and healthcare resource allocation. Methods: A partitioned survival model was built using data from the HLX01-NHL03 trial, analyzing clinical outcomes in three health states-progression-free survival, progressive disease, and terminal state-over a 10-year time horizon. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were compared across transplant-eligible and non-transplant-eligible patient subgroups. Sensitivity analyses were performed to confirm the robustness of the model. Results: Over 10 years, Hanlikang-CHOP (H-CHOP) patients gained 7.11 QALYs, compared to 6.50 QALYs for Rituximab-CHOP (R-CHOP). The ICER for transplant-eligible patients ranged from US$ 36,386.92 (CNY 263,215.70) to US$ 38,379.79 (CNY 277,631.72) per QALY, depending on the treatment. In non-transplant-eligible patients, the ICER was between US$ 7,079.15 (CNY 51,209.16) and US$ 17,094.61 (CNY 123,658.99) per QALY. Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy significantly increased the ICER to US$ 356,793.77 (CNY 2,580,974.77). Sensitivity analyses confirmed survival duration and drug costs as key factors. Conclusion: Hanlikang offers a cost-effective alternative to rituximab in specific patient populations, particularly those not eligible for transplant. However, its economic benefits diminish in more complex treatment scenarios, such as those involving CAR-T therapy or novel agents.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.