Background and hypothesis: The MENTOR trial (MEmbranous Nephropathy Trial Of Rituximab) showed that rituximab was noninferior to cyclosporine in inducing complete or partial remission of proteinuria and was superior in maintaining proteinuria remission. However, the cost of rituximab may prohibit first-line use for some patients and health care payers.
Methods: A Markov model was used to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of rituximab compared with cyclosporine for the treatment membranous nephropathy from the perspective of a health care payer with a life-time time horizon. The model was informed by data from the MENTOR trial where possible; additional parameters including cost and utility inputs were obtained from the literature. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the impact of reduced cost biosimilar rituximab.
Results: Rituximab for the treatment of membranous nephropathy was cost-effective (assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of ${\$}$50 000 per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained; ${\$}$US 2021) compared with cyclosporine, with an ICER of ${\$}$8 373/QALY over a lifetime time horizon. The incremental cost of rituximab therapy was ${\$}$28 007 with an additional 3.34 QALYs compared with cyclosporine. Lower cost of rituximab biosimilars resulted in a more favourable ICER, and in some cases resulted in rituximab being dominant (lower cost and great benefit) compared to cyclosporine.
Conclusions: Despite the greater cost of rituximab, it may be a cost-effective option for the treatment of membranous nephropathy when compared with cyclosporine. The cost-effectiveness of rituximab is further improved with the use of less expensive biosimilars.
Keywords: cost-effectiveness; cyclosporine; economic evaluation; membranous nephropathy; rituximab.
© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the ERA.