Treatment patterns and costs of care for patients with relapsed and refractory Hodgkin lymphoma treated with brentuximab vedotin in the United States: A retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Although brentuximab vedotin (BV) has changed the management of patients with relapsed or refractory Hodgkin lymphoma (RRHL), little information is available on routine clinical practice. We identified treatment patterns and costs of care among RRHL patients in the United States (US) treated with BV. METHODS: A retrospective observational study of adults initiating BV for RRHL from 2011-2015, with ≥6 months of data prior to and following BV initiation, was conducted. Treatments were classified based on dispensations and chemotherapy administration. Median total and monthly costs were estimated based on all-cause healthcare resource use in 2015 US dollars (USD). RESULTS: The cohort comprised 289 patients (59% male; mean age at diagnosis, 42 years) with a mean follow-up of 250 weeks. Eleven percent had BV salvage therapy prior to ASCT, and 32% had BV for a relapse post-ASCT. 43% received treatment post-BV, most commonly allogeneic stem cell transplant (SCT) and bendamustine (both 10.2%). Median (IQR) total costs from BV initiation to censoring were 294,790 (142,110-483,360) USD; and were highest among those treated with BV prior to ASCT (up to 421,900 [300,940-778,970] USD). Median monthly costs were almost 20,000 USD per month, and up to 25,000 USD per month among those with BV and ASCT. Medications were the greatest driver of median monthly costs. CONCLUSIONS: Median total all-cause costs were almost 300,000 USD, and median monthly costs approximately 20,000 USD, per patient treated. Patients requiring treatment following BV continue to incur high costs, highlighting the economic burden associated with managing patients in the RRHL setting.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".