Survival Outcomes for US and Canadian Patients Diagnosed with Hodgkin Lymphoma before and after Brentuximab Vedotin Approval for Relapsed/Refractory Disease: A Retrospective Cohort Study

TL;DR

This study compares survival outcomes for Hodgkin lymphoma patients in the U.S. and Canada before and after a new drug became available, highlighting access disparities.

Contribution

The study provides new evidence on survival differences linked to drug approval delays in universal healthcare systems.

Findings

U.S. patients showed improved survival after BV approval compared to before.

Canadian patients had similar but non-significant survival improvements.

U.S. uninsured and Medicaid patients had worse survival than privately insured and Canadian patients.

Abstract

Cost-effectiveness analyses are required for therapies within Canada’s universal healthcare system, leading to delays relative to U.S. healthcare. Patients with Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) generally have an excellent prognosis, but those who relapse after or are ineligible for transplant benefit from novel therapies, including brentuximab vedotin (BV). BV was FDA-approved in 2011 but not Canadian-funded until 2014. To assess the impact of access delays, we compared changes in survival for U.S. (by insurer) and Canadian patients in periods pre/post-U.S. approval. Patients were 16–64 years, diagnosed with HL in 2007–2010 (Period 1) and 2011–2014 (Period 2) from the U.S. SEER and Canadian Cancer Registries. Approval date (surrogate) was utilized as therapy was unavailable in registries. Kaplan-Meier survival curves and adjusted Cox regression models compared survival between periods by insurance category. Among 12,003 U.S. and 4210 Canadian patients, survival was better in U.S. patients (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 0.87 (95%CI 0.77–0.98)) between periods; improvement in Canadian patients (aHR 0.84 (95%CI 0.69–1.03) was similar but non-significant. Comparisons between insurers showed survival was significantly worse for U.S. uninsured and Medicaid vs. U.S. privately insured and Canadian patients. Given the increasingly complex nature of oncologic funding, this merits further investigation to ensure equity in access to therapy developments.

Figures