Estimation of total costs in patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma receiving tisagenlecleucel from a US hospital's perspective

Cost-effectiveness of axicabtagene ciloleucel versus tisagenlecleucel for the treatment of 3L + relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma in the United States: incorporating longer survival results

AIMS

To provide an update on the cost-effectiveness of the chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) and tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) for the treatment of relapsed/refractory (r/r) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) among patients who have previously received ≥2 lines of systemic therapy using more mature clinical trial data cuts (60 months for axi-cel overall survival [OS] and 45 months for tisa-cel OS and progression-free survival [PFS]).

METHODS

A partitioned survival model consisting of three health states (pre-progression, post-progression and death) was used to estimate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs associated with axi-cel and tisa-cel over a lifetime horizon. PFS and OS inputs for axi-cel and tisa-cel were based on a previously published matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparison (MAIC). Long-term OS and PFS were extrapolated using parametric survival mixture cure models (PS-MCMs). Costs of CAR-T cell therapy drug acquisition and administration, conditioning chemotherapy, apheresis, CAR T-specific monitoring, stem cell transplant, hospitalization, adverse events, routine care, and terminal care were sourced from US cost databases. Health state utilities were derived from previous publications. Model inputs were varied using a range of sensitivity and scenario analyses.

RESULTS

Compared with tisa-cel, axi-cel resulted in 2.51 additional QALYs and $50,185 additional costs (an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] of $19,994 per QALY gained). In probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA), the ICER for axi-cel versus tisa-cel was ≤$50,000/QALY in 99.4% of simulations and ≤$33,500 in 99% of simulations. Axi-cel remained cost-effective versus tisa-cel (assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY) across a range of scenarios.

CONCLUSIONS

With longer-term survival data, axi-cel continues to represent a cost-effective option versus tisa-cel for treatment of r/r LBCL among patients who have previously received ≥2 lines of systemic therapy, from a US payer perspective.

Management and Prevention of Cellular-Therapy-Related Toxicity: Early and Late Complications

Chimeric Antigen Receptor T (CAR-T) cell therapy has dramatically changed prognosis and treatment of relapsed and refractory hematologic malignancies. Currently the 6 FDA approved products target various surface antigens. While CAR-T therapy achieves good response, life-threatening toxicities have been reported. Mechanistically, can be divided into two categories: (1) toxicities related to T-cell activation and release of high levels of cytokines: or (2) toxicities resulting from interaction between CAR and CAR targeted antigen expressed on non-malignant cells (i.e., on-target, off-tumor effects). Variations in conditioning therapies, co-stimulatory domains, CAR T-cell dose and anti-cytokine administration, pose a challenge in distinguishing cytokine mediated related toxicities from on-target, off-tumor toxicities. Timing, frequency, severity, as well as optimal management of CAR T-cell-related toxicities vary significantly between products and are likely to change as newer therapies become available. Currently the FDA approved CARs are targeted towards the B-cell malignancies however the future holds promise of expanding the target to solid tumor malignancies. Further highlighting the importance of early recognition and intervention for early and late onset CAR-T related toxicity. This contemporary review aims to describe presentation, grading and management of commonly encountered toxicities, short- and long-term complications, discuss preventive strategies and resource utilization.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Frontline Polatuzumab-Rituximab, Cyclophosphamide, Doxorubicin, and Prednisone and/or Second-Line Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell Therapy Versus Standard of Care for Treatment of Patients With Intermediate- to High-Risk Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma

PURPOSE

Recent studies of polatuzumab vedotin and CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (CAR-T) have shown significant improvements in progression-free survival over standard of care (SOC) for patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. However, they are costly, and it is unclear whether these strategies, alone or combined, are cost-effective over SOC.

METHODS

A Markov model was constructed to compare four strategies for patients with newly diagnosed intermediate- to high-risk diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: strategy 1: polatuzumab-rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (R-CHP) plus second-line CAR-T for early relapse (< 12 months); strategy 2: polatuzumab-R-CHP plus second-line salvage therapy ± autologous stem-cell transplant; strategy 3: rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone plus second-line CAR-T for early relapse; strategy 4: SOC (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone plus second-line salvage therapy ± autologous stem-cell transplant). Transition probabilities were estimated from trial data. Lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated from US and Canadian payer perspectives. Willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of $150,000 US dollars (USD) or Canadian dollars (CAD)/QALY were used.

RESULTS

In probabilistic analyses (10,000 simulations), each strategy was incrementally more effective than the previous strategy, but also more costly. Adding polatuzumab-R-CHP to the SOC had an ICER of $546,956 (338,797-1,199,923) USD/QALY and $245,381 (151,671-573,250) CAD/QALY. Adding second-line CAR-T to the SOC had an ICER of $309,813 (190,197-694,200) USD/QALY and $303,163 (221,300-1,063,864) CAD/QALY. Simultaneously adding both polatuzumab-R-CHP and second-line CAR-T to the SOC had an ICER of $488,284 (326,765-840,157) USD/QALY and $267,050 (182,832-520,922) CAD/QALY.

CONCLUSION

Given uncertain incremental benefits in long-term survival and high costs, neither polatuzumab-R-CHP frontline, CAR-T second-line, nor a combination are likely to be cost-effective in the United States or Canada at current pricing compared with the SOC.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of CAR T-Cell Therapies vs Antibody Drug Conjugates for Patients with Advanced Multiple Myeloma

OBJECTIVES

Among advanced multiple myeloma (MM) patients, B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) specific targets like Belantamab Mafodotin (belamaf) and CAR T-cell therapies have been shown to improve clinical outcomes, but at significant costs. To compare the expected costs per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained among a hypothetical cohort of triple refractory MM patients treated with one of three BCMA-directed therapies: (1) idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel), (2) ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel), and (3) belamaf for up to 20 months.

METHODS

In this cost-effectiveness analysis, we built a Monte Carlo Markov Chain microsimulation model using estimates and parameters from the evidence on MM treatment for 10 000 hypothetical patients between the ages for 40 and 80. We assigned expected years of life remaining and made varying assumptions about survival beyond 5 years.

RESULTS

We predicted total cost of treatment for CAR-T therapy to be six times greater than for belamaf, but the QALYs gained from treatment are 6 to 8 times greater. Ide-cel was weakly dominated by cilta-cel and our base-case incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) comparing cilta-cel with belamaf was $109,497 per QALY gained, averaging $123,618 in probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings hinge on the assumption of longer-term survival but suggest that the use of CAR-T therapy is approaching standard ICER thresholds.

Cost-effectiveness of Axicabtagene Ciloleucel and Tisagenlecleucel as Second-line or Later Therapy in Relapsed or Refractory Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma

IMPORTANCE

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapies are approved as a third-line or later therapy for several hematological malignant neoplasms. Recently, randomized clinical trials have investigated their efficacy as a second-line treatment in high-risk relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) compared with salvage chemotherapy followed by hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT).

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of axicabtagene ciloleucel and tisagenlecleucel vs standard care (SC) as second-line or later therapy for relapsed or refractory DLBCL, from both US health care sector and societal perspectives at a cost-effectiveness threshold of $150 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This economic evaluation assessed cost-effectiveness using a partitioned survival model with 2021 US dollars and QALYs over a lifetime horizon. Model inputs were derived from 2 randomized clinical trials (ZUMA-7 and BELINDA) and published literature. In the trials, patients who did not respond to SC received CAR T cells (treatment switching or crossover), either outside the protocol (ZUMA-7) or as part of the protocol (BELINDA). A separate scenario analysis compared second-line axicabtagene ciloleucel with SC alone without treatment crossover to CAR T cell therapy. Data analysis was performed from December 18, 2021, to September 13, 2022.

EXPOSURES

CAR T cell therapy (axicabtagene ciloleucel and tisagenlecleucel) compared with salvage chemotherapy followed by HSCT.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Costs and QALYs were used to derive incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for the health care sector and societal perspectives. Cost and QALYs were discounted at 3.0% annually. Univariate and multivariate probabilistic sensitivity analysis using 10 000 Monte Carlo simulations were applied to test model uncertainty on the ICER.

RESULTS

Second-line axicabtagene ciloleucel was associated with an ICER of $99 101 per QALY from the health care sector perspective and an ICER of $97 977 per QALY from the societal perspective, while second-line tisagenlecleucel was dominated by SC (incremental costs of $37 803 from the health care sector and $39 480 from the societal perspective with decremental QALY of -0.02). Third-line or later tisagenlecleucel was associated with an ICER of $126 593 per QALY from the health care sector perspective and an ICER of $128 012 per QALY from the societal perspective. Based on the scenario analysis of no treatment switching, second-line axicabtagene ciloleucel yielded an ICER of $216 790 per QALY from the health care sector perspective and an ICER of $218 907 per QALY from the societal perspective, compared with SC. When accounting for patients achieving prolonged progression-free survival who would not incur progression-related costs, in this scenario ICER changed to $125 962 per QALY from the health care sector perspective and $122 931 per QALY from the societal perspective. These results were most sensitive to increased list prices of CAR T cell therapy and QALY losses associated with axicabtagene ciloleucel and tisagenlecleucel.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that second-line axicabtagene ciloleucel and third-line or later tisagenlecleucel were cost-effective in treating patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL at the cost-effectiveness threshold of $150 000 per QALY. However, uncertainty remains regarding the best candidates who would experience value gains from receiving CAR T cell therapy.

Critical care management of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy recipients

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy is a promising immunotherapeutic treatment concept that is changing the treatment approach to hematologic malignancies. The development of CAR T-cell therapy represents a prime example for the successful bench-to-bedside translation of advances in immunology and cellular therapy into clinical practice. The currently available CAR T-cell products have shown high response rates and long-term remissions in patients with relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia and relapsed/refractory lymphoma. However, CAR T-cell therapy can induce severe life-threatening toxicities such as cytokine release syndrome, neurotoxicity, or infection, which require rapid and aggressive medical treatment in the intensive care unit setting. In this review, the authors provide an overview of the state-of-the-art in the clinical management of severe life-threatening events in CAR T-cell recipients. Furthermore, key challenges that have to be overcome to maximize the safety of CAR T cells are discussed.

Economic Evidence on Potentially Curative Gene Therapy Products: A Systematic Literature Review

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this review was to summarize all available evidence on the cost effectiveness of potentially curative gene therapies and identify challenges that economic evaluations face in this area.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of four databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, EconLit) and grey literature sources. We conducted the search on August 23, 2019 and updated it on November 26, 2020. We included all English, French and Spanish language studies that addressed a gene therapy that had received regulatory approval or had entered a phase III trial, and also reported on costs related to the therapy. Critical appraisal was conducted to assess quality of reporting in included studies.

RESULTS

Fifty-six studies were identified. Of the 42 full economic evaluations, 71% (n = 30) evaluated chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies, most used either a Markov model (n = 17, 40%) and/or a partitioned survival model (n = 17, 40%), and 76% (n = 32) adopted a public or private payer perspective. The model characteristics with the greatest impact on cost effectiveness included assumptions about the efficacy of the treatment and the comparators used.

CONCLUSION

All gene therapies in this review were shown to be more effective than their comparators, although due to high costs not all were considered cost effective at standard cost-effectiveness thresholds. Despite their high cost, some gene therapies have the potential to dominate the alternatives in conditions with high mortality/disability. The choice of comparator and assumptions regarding long-term effectiveness had substantial impacts on cost-effectiveness estimates and need to be carefully considered. Both the quality of inputs and the quality of reporting were highly variable.

Perspectives on outpatient administration of CAR-T cell therapy in aggressive B-cell lymphoma and acute lymphoblastic leukemia

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies that specifically target the CD19 antigen have emerged as a highly effective treatment option in patients with refractory B-cell hematological malignancies. Safety and efficacy outcomes from the pivotal prospective clinical trials of axicabtagene ciloleucel, tisagenlecleucel and lisocabtagene maraleucel and the retrospective, postmarketing, real-world analyses have confirmed high response rates and durable remissions in patients who had failed multiple lines of therapy and had no meaningful treatment options. Although initially administered in the inpatient setting, there has been a growing interest in delivering CAR-T cell therapy in the outpatient setting; however, this has not been adopted as standard clinical practice for multiple reasons, including logistic and reimbursement issues. CAR-T cell therapy requires a multidisciplinary approach and coordination, particularly if given in an outpatient setting. The ability to monitor patients closely is necessary and proper protocols must be established to respond to clinical changes to ensure efficient, effective and rapid evaluation either in the clinic or emergency department for management decisions regarding fever, sepsis, cytokine release syndrome and neurological events, specifically immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome. This review presents the authors' institutional experience with the preparation and delivery of outpatient CD19-directed CAR-T cell therapy.