Cost-effectiveness analysis of axicabtagene ciloleucel vs. salvage chemotherapy for relapsed or refractory adult diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in China

Economic Evaluations of Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell Therapies for Hematologic and Solid Malignancies: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to systematically review evidence on the cost-effectiveness of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapies for patients with cancer.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched in October 2022 and updated in September 2023. Systematic reviews, health technology assessments, and economic evaluations that compared costs and effects of CAR-T therapy in patients with cancer were included. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, synthesized results, and critically appraised studies using the Philips checklist. Cost data were presented in 2022 US dollars.

RESULTS

Our search yielded 1809 records, 47 of which were included. Most of included studies were cost-utility analysis, published between 2018 and 2023, and conducted in the United States. Tisagenlecleucel, axicabtagene ciloleucel, idecabtagene vicleucel, ciltacabtagene autoleucel, lisocabtagene maraleucel, brexucabtagene autoleucel, and relmacabtagene autoleucel were compared with various standard of care chemotherapies. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for CAR-T therapies ranged from $9424 to $4 124 105 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) in adults and from $20 784 to $243 177 per QALY in pediatric patients. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were found to improve over longer time horizons or when an earlier cure point was assumed. Most studies failed to meet the Philips checklist due to a lack of head-to-head comparisons and uncertainty surrounding CAR-T costs and curative effects.

CONCLUSIONS

CAR-T therapies were more expensive and generated more QALYs than comparators, but their cost-effectiveness was uncertain and dependent on patient population, cancer type, and model assumptions. This highlights the need for more nuanced economic evaluations and continued research to better understand the value of CAR-T therapies in diverse patient populations.

Cost-effectiveness analysis 3L of axicabtagene ciloleucel vs tisagenlecleucel and lisocabtagene maraleucel in Japan

Aim: Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was performed to compare axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) with tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) and lisocabtagene (liso-cel) for treatment of relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma in adult patients after ≥2 lines of therapy in Japan. Materials & methods: Cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using the partition survival mixture cure model based on the ZUMA-1 trial and adjusted to the JULIET and TRANSCEND trials using matching-adjusted indirect comparisons. Results & conclusion: Axi-cel was associated with greater incremental life years (3.13 and 2.85) and incremental quality-adjusted life-years (2.65 and 2.24), thus generated lower incremental direct medical costs (-$976.29 [-¥137,657] and -$242.00 [-¥34,122]), compared with tisa-cel and liso-cel. Axi-cel was cost-effective option compared with tisa-cel and liso-cel from a Japanese payer's perspective.

A Systematic Literature Review of Health-Related Quality of Life Outcomes and Associated Utility Values in Relapsed and/or Refractory Large B Cell Lymphoma

BACKGROUND

In this ever-expanding treatment landscape, there is a lack of consolidated health-related quality of life (HRQOL) outcomes and utility reports in relapsed or refractory (R/R) large B cell lymphoma (LBCL) to inform health care policy and decision-maker assessments for both old and new products. These assessments can have a direct effect on what treatment options are available to patients and physicians.

OBJECTIVE

A systematic literature review (SLR) was performed to understand the HRQOL evidence for treatments in R/R LBCL and identify associated health utility values.

METHODS

The SLR searched and screened literature published from 1 January 2003 to 2 May 2022. Studies were screened based on Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome, Study design criteria established a priori and were assessed by two independent reviewers; quality assessments of the evidence were performed in accordance with health technology assessment recommendations from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Several types of therapies were included, such as chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell products (lisocabtagene maraleucel, axicabtagene ciloleucel, tisagenlecleucel), novel therapies (selinexor, nivolumab, polatuzumab vedotin, and bendamustine), salvage therapies, and rituximab.

RESULTS

The review identified 33 unique studies reporting HRQOL, including 15 economic studies that reported health state utility values, 9 clinical trials, 7 health technology assessment reports, and 1 each of a vignette-based study and a point-in-time survey. Improvements in general and/or lymphoma-specific HRQOL measures were observed with CAR T cell therapy in both the second-line and third-line or later settings. On-treatment utility values for CAR T cell therapies ranged from 0.50 to 0.74. Values for remission/progression-free survival (0.70-0.90) and for disease progression (0.39-0.59) were similar across studies. For novel therapies, utility values were 0.83 for progression-free survival and ranged from 0.39 to 0.71 for disease progression. On-treatment utility values for salvage chemotherapy ranged from 0.63 to 0.67.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the evidence synthesized in this SLR provides a comprehensive understanding of the HRQOL evidence in R/R LBCL. This article identified several sources for utility values in the published literature showing variation in the HRQOL outcomes for patients across a variety of therapeutics. Treatment of R/R LBCL with CAR T cell therapies was associated with improvement in health utility values. Mixed results were found for novel therapies and salvage therapies. More data are needed as new therapies are used in this patient population to inform treatment decision-making.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Relmacabtagene Autoleucel for Relapsed or Refractory Large B-Cell Lymphoma in China

OBJECTIVES

Relmacabtagene autoleucel (relma-cel) was recently approved in China for treating relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma (r/r LBCL). We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system.

METHODS

A mixture-cure model was developed to project life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and overall direct cost with a lifetime horizon for patients with r/r LBCL treated with relma-cel versus salvage chemotherapy. Patient-level data from RELIANCE trial and published data from Collaborative Trial in Relapsed Aggressive Lymphoma extension study were used to inform the model. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated and cost-effectiveness was evaluated at the willingness-to-pay threshold of 3 times the national gross domestic product per capita.

RESULTS

The model projected that treatment with relma-cel was associated with incremental gains of 5.11 LYs and 5.26 QALYs compared with salvage chemotherapy at an increased cost of ¥1 067 430 (∼$154 152), resulting in an ICER of ¥203 137 (∼$29 435) per QALY. The model was most sensitive to the uncertainty around the estimated cure rate. The ICER of relma-cel was within the willingness-to-pay threshold in the base case and the probability of relma-cel treatment being considered cost-effective was approximately 74%.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with salvage chemotherapy, treatment with relma-cel for r/r LBCL in patients who have failed at least 2 lines of systemic therapy is within the cost-effective range from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system and represents a good use of healthcare resources.