Advances in therapy · 2023
Cost-Effectiveness of Lisocabtagene Maraleucel Versus Axicabtagene Ciloleucel and Tisagenlecleucel in the Third-Line or Later Treatment Setting for Relapsed or Refractory Large B-cell Lymphoma in the United States.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Parker Christopher, Liu Fei Fei, Deger Kristen A, Franco-Villalobos Conrado, Proskorovsky Irina, Keating Scott J, Sorensen Sonja
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) versus other available chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies, including axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) and tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel), in patients who had received at least two prior therapies from a United States (US) commercial third-party payer perspective.
METHODS: To capture this heterogeneity in survival outcomes, we used mixture cure models to extrapolate progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Patient-level data from TRANSCEND NHL 001 for liso-cel and reconstructed patient-level data from ZUMA-1 for axi-cel, JULIET for tisa-cel, and SCHOLAR-1 for salvage chemotherapy, derived using the Guyot method, were used for OS and PFS. The model included adverse events associated with liso-cel, axi-cel, and tisa-cel.
RESULTS: Liso-cel was less costly (incremental cost of - $74,980) and marginally more effective (0.002 incremental quality-adjusted life-years [QALY]) than axi-cel and had an incremental cost of $67,925 and 2.02 incremental QALYs over tisa-cel in the base case. Results remained consistent in sensitivity analyses, with the liso-cel OS cure fraction being the main driver of cost-effectiveness compared with both axi-cel and tisa-cel.
CONCLUSION: This analysis estimated that liso-cel is cost-effective compared with tisa-cel and axi-cel from a commercial US payer perspective.
METHODS: To capture this heterogeneity in survival outcomes, we used mixture cure models to extrapolate progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Patient-level data from TRANSCEND NHL 001 for liso-cel and reconstructed patient-level data from ZUMA-1 for axi-cel, JULIET for tisa-cel, and SCHOLAR-1 for salvage chemotherapy, derived using the Guyot method, were used for OS and PFS. The model included adverse events associated with liso-cel, axi-cel, and tisa-cel.
RESULTS: Liso-cel was less costly (incremental cost of - $74,980) and marginally more effective (0.002 incremental quality-adjusted life-years [QALY]) than axi-cel and had an incremental cost of $67,925 and 2.02 incremental QALYs over tisa-cel in the base case. Results remained consistent in sensitivity analyses, with the liso-cel OS cure fraction being the main driver of cost-effectiveness compared with both axi-cel and tisa-cel.
CONCLUSION: This analysis estimated that liso-cel is cost-effective compared with tisa-cel and axi-cel from a commercial US payer perspective.