Lifetime Costs for Treated Follicular Lymphoma Patients in the US

Efficacy, safety, and cost-minimization analysis of axicabtagene ciloleucel and tisagenlecleucel CAR T-Cell therapies for treatment of relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma

Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) and tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) are chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies used to treat adult patients with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma (rrFL) after two or more lines of systemic therapy. In the absence of head-to-head clinical trials, this study aimed to compare the efficacy, safety, and cost of axi-cel and tisa-cel in the treatment of rrFL after at least two lines of treatment. Overall response rate (ORR) and safety signals were compared using reporting odds ratios (RORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) at p < 0.05. Progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response (DoR), and overall survival (OS) were compared using the Kaplan?Meier method with a log-rank test. Cost and cost-minimization analyses of drug acquisition, drug administration, serious adverse events (AEs), and relapsed management were calculated. Costs were extracted from the IBM-Micromedex Red Book, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and existing literature. Statistical analyses were conducted using Microsoft Excel and R version 4.0.5. No statistically significant differences were observed between axi-cel and tisa-cel in terms of ORR, DoR, and OS (p > 0.05). PFS was significantly better with tisa-cel (p < 0.05). Axi-cel was significantly associated with higher incidences of CRS, neurologic events, and grade 3-4 AEs than tisa-cel (ROR > 1, p < 0.05). Axi-cel and tisa-cel cost $512,021 and $450,885 per patient, respectively, resulting in savings of US$61,136 with tisa-cel over axi-cel. Tisa-cel appears to have a better safety profile, fewer serious AEs, lower mortality rate, and lower cost than axi-cel.

Burden of Illness in Follicular Lymphoma with Multiple Lines of Treatment, Italian RWE Analysis

This real-world analysis investigated patients with follicular lymphoma in Italy receiving three or more treatment lines (≥3L), focusing on therapeutic pathways with their rebounds on healthcare resource consumptions and costs. Data were retrieved from administrative databases from healthcare entities covering about 13.3 million residents. Adults diagnosed with follicular lymphoma were identified between January 2015 and June 2020, and among them 2434 patients with ≥3L of treatment during the data availability interval (January 2009 to June 2021) were included. Of them, 1318 were in 3L, 494 in 4L and 622 in ≥5L. A relevant proportion of patients (12-32%) switched to a later line within the same calendar year. At 3-year follow-up (median), 34% patients died. Total mean annual expenses were euro 14,508 in the year preceding inclusion and rose to euro 21,081 at 1-year follow-up (on average euro 22,230/patient/year for the whole follow-up), with hospitalization and drug expenses as weightiest cost items. In conclusion, the clinical and economic burden of follicular lymphoma increases along with later treatment lines. The high mortality rates indicate that further efforts are needed to optimize disease management.

Copanlisib plus rituximab combination therapy vs. rituximab monotherapy for relapsed indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis

Background

In the clinical use of third-line treatment of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), the combination treatment is increasingly used due to problems such as drug resistance, and while their efficacy has been proven, whether they are economical has become a new issue. A recent trial showed copanlisib plus rituximab combination therapy (CRCT) had better efficacy in the treatment of relapsed indolent NHL (iNHL) compared to rituximab monotherapy (RM). However, the long-term cost and effectiveness of this regimen is not known. We are the first to evaluate the cost effectiveness of CRCT in third-line treatment of relapsed iNHL from the perspective of US payers.

Methods

We used a Markov model to evaluate cost and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) which included a population from CHRONOS-3 with mean age of 62.5 years and total cycle length of 16.3 years. The cycle length was 1 month, adverse reaction rates were from CHRONOS-3, mean body surface area was referenced from published literature, cost values are referenced from published literature and Drugbank, utility values were referenced from the published literature, and the primary endpoint was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The willingness to pay (WTP) threshold was set at $150,000 per QALYs, and one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were used to verify the robustness of the model. All costs are expressed in 2021 dollars and costs and utilities have been calculated at a discount rate of 3% per year.

Results

CRCT and RM obtained 6.53 QALYs and 5.15 QALYs, respectively, and the ICER of CRCT vs. RM was $358,895.2/QALYs. Parameters having the greatest impact on the robustness of the model were the drug cost of copanlisib and the utility value of the progression-free survival (PFS) state. When the WTP threshold was $150,000, the probability of CRCT and RM being the most cost effective was 0.4% and 99.6% respectively.

Conclusions

From a US payer perspective, CRCT is not cost-effective in treating relapsed iNHL at current prices compared to RM. But given its positive clinical efficacy, appropriate price discounts or assistance programs should be considered to make CRCT more affordable to patients with relapsed iNHL.