Dataset Information

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.

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Parker C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10129927 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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.

Parker Christopher C Liu Fei Fei FF Deger Kristen A KA Franco-Villalobos Conrado C Proskorovsky Irina I Keating Scott J SJ Sorensen Sonja S

Advances in therapy 20230322 5

<h4>Introduction</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>To capture this heterogeneity in survival outcomes, we used mixture cure models to extra ...[more]

PMID: 36947328

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceChimeric 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).ObjectiveTo 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 participantsThis 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.ExposuresCAR T cell therapy (axicabtagene ciloleucel and tisagenlecleucel) compared with salvage chemotherapy followed by HSCT.Main outcomes and measuresCosts 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.ResultsSecond-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 relevanceThese 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.

Project description:BackgroundThere are no head-to-head clinical studies comparing chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies for the treatment of relapsed or refractory aggressive large B-cell lymphomas. Naive, indirect comparisons may be inappropriate, as the study designs and patient populations could differ substantially. Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAIC) can reduce many biases associated with indirect comparisons between studies. To determine the comparative efficacy and safety of lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) to tisagenlecleucel, we describe an unanchored MAIC of the pivotal studies TRANSCEND NHL 001 (TRANSCEND; NCT02631044; liso-cel) and JULIET (NCT02445248; tisagenlecleucel).MethodsIndividual patient data (IPD) from TRANSCEND were available to the authors; for the JULIET pivotal study, summary-level data from the published study were used. To balance the populations between two studies, IPD from TRANSCEND were adjusted to match the marginal distribution (e.g., mean, variance) of clinical factors among patients from JULIET.ResultsResults from the primary MAIC showed liso-cel had statistically significant greater efficacy than tisagenlecleucel (objective response rate: odds ratio [OR] = 2.78, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.63‒4.74; complete response rate: OR = 2.01, 95% CI: 1.22‒3.30; progression-free survival: hazard ratio [HR] = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.47‒0.91; overall survival: HR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.47‒0.95). MAIC of safety outcomes showed lower ORs for all-grade and grade ≥ 3 cytokine release syndrome, and grade ≥ 3 prolonged cytopenia for liso-cel when compared with tisagenlecleucel; there were no statistically significant differences detected for other safety outcomes.ConclusionsOverall, this MAIC of two CAR T-cell therapies indicates liso-cel had favorable efficacy and a comparable or better safety profile relative to tisagenlecleucel.Clinical trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT02631044 and NCT02445248.

Project description:BackgroundCurrently, three chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T cell products axicabtagene ciloleucel, tisagenlecleucel, and lisocabtagene maraleucel have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of large B cell lymphoma, which provide a novel and promising choice for patients with relapsed or refractory to traditional anti-tumor treatments. Thus, it is pertinent to describe the efficacy and safety profile of the three products available by summarizing the current evidence.MethodsTwo reviewers independently searched the Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library, to identify studies related to the use of the three CAR-T cell products for treating hematologic malignancies published up to October 5, 2020. We pooled the overall response rate, complete response rate, cytokine release syndrome, and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome of three products, and then performed subgroup analysis based on the type of product and type of tumor.ResultsThirty-three studies involving 2,172 patients were included in the analysis. All three products showed promising results in patients with different pathological subtypes and clinical characteristics that included those who did not meet the eligibility criteria of licensing trials, with overall response rates of nearly 70% or above and complete response rates of more than 50%. However, high rates of severe immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome in patients undergoing axicabtagene ciloleucel treatment and life-threatening cytokine release syndrome in patients with leukemia undergoing tisagenlecleucel treatment required special attention in practice (31%; 95% CI: 0.27-0.35 and 55%; 95% CI: 0.45-0.64, respectively). Moreover, lisocabtagene maraleucel that showed a favorable efficacy and safety in the licensing trial lacked corresponding real-world data.ConclusionBoth axicabtagene ciloleucel and tisagenlecleucel showed considerable efficacy in practice, but need special attention with respect to life-threatening toxicity that can occur in certain situations. Lisocabtagene maraleucel demonstrated excellent efficacy and safety profiles in the licensing trial, but lacked corresponding real-world data. Additional data on the three products are needed in rare histological subtypes to benefit a broader patient population.

Project description:Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) and tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) are CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor T cell (CAR-T) therapies approved for relapsed/refractory aggressive large B cell lymphoma (LBCL). Significant costs and complex manufacturing underscore the importance of evidence-based counseling regarding the outcomes of these treatments. With the aim of examining the efficacy and safety of axi-cel versus tisa-cel in patients with relapsed/refractory aggressive LBCL, we performed a systematic literature search of comparative studies evaluating outcomes in relapsed/refractory aggressive LBCL after treatment with axi-cel or tisa-cel. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for response, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), cytokine release syndrome (CRS), immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS), and hematotoxicity. Meta-analysis and meta-regression were used to generate summary statistics. A total of 2372 participants were included in the 8 studies in our analysis. The dropout rate between apheresis and infusion was 13% for axi-cel versus 18% for tisa-cel, and the median time from apheresis to infusion was 32 days versus 45 days. Axi-cel showed higher odds for a complete response (OR, 1.65; P < .001) and was associated with higher odds for PFS at 1 year after infusion (OR, .60; P < .001). OS appeared to be improved with axi-cel (OR, .84; 95% CI, .68 to 1.02; P = .08), whereas the cumulative incidence of nonrelapse mortality (NRM) was 11.5% for axi-cel versus 3.7% for tisa-cel (P = .002). The main predictors for survival were lactate dehydrogenase level, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, and response to bridging, and axi-cel maintained superior efficacy even in elderly patients. In terms of safety, axi-cel was associated with significantly higher odds of any-grade CRS (OR, 3.23; P < .001), but not of grade ≥3 CRS (P = .92). Axi-cel was associated with significantly higher odds of severe ICANS grade ≥3 (OR, 4.03; P < .001). In terms of hematotoxicity, axi-cel was significantly associated with higher odds of severe neutropenia at 1 month after infusion (OR, 2.06; P = .003). As a result, axi-cel was associated with significantly greater resource utilization, including prolonged hospital stay, more frequent intensive care admission, and use of agents such as tocilizumab for toxicity management. We provide strong evidence of the greater efficacy of axi-cel versus tisa-cel in relapsed/refractory aggressive LBCL. The higher toxicity and NRM seen with axi-cel might not counterbalance the overall results, highlighting the need for timely intervention and careful selection of patients, balancing resource utilization and clinical benefit.

Project description:BackgroundThe treatment landscape for relapsed or refractory (R/R) follicular lymphoma (FL) has changed with the introduction of anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies, including lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) and CD20 × CD3 bispecific T-cell-engaging monoclonal antibodies such as mosunetuzumab. Liso-cel and mosunetuzumab have demonstrated positive benefit-risk profiles for third-line or later (3L+) treatment of patients with R/R FL and are approved treatments for these patients. In the absence of a prospective, randomized study, we conducted an unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) to assess the efficacy and safety of liso-cel and mosunetuzumab for 3L+ treatment in patients with R/R FL.MethodsUnanchored MAICs were performed to estimate relative treatment effects between TRANSCEND FL (NCT04245839) and GO29781 (NCT02500407). For TRANSCEND FL, the leukapheresis set (N = 114) was used for primary comparisons of the following efficacy endpoints: objective response rate (ORR), complete response (CR) rate, duration of response (DOR), and progression-free survival (PFS). The treated set (N = 107) was used for comparisons of the following safety endpoints: cytokine release syndrome (CRS), neurological events (NE), serious infections, and use of corticosteroids or tocilizumab for CRS. Sensitivity analyses were conducted for efficacy using the TRANSCEND FL treated efficacy set (N = 101).ResultsAfter adjustment, liso-cel was associated with higher ORR (odds ratio [OR] = 3.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.48‒9.67]) and CR rate (OR = 6.46, 95% CI 2.85‒14.65), and improved DOR (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.45, 95% CI 0.26‒0.77) and PFS (HR = 0.28, 95% CI 0.16‒0.49) compared with mosunetuzumab. Results remained consistent across sensitivity analyses. Liso-cel had a lower incidence of grade ≥ 3 CRS (OR = 0.45, 95% CI 0.04‒5.13), grade 3‒4 serious infections (OR = 0.35, 95% CI 0.12‒1.03), and corticosteroid use for CRS management (OR = 0.14, 95% CI 0.03‒0.65); however, liso-cel exhibited higher incidence of any-grade CRS (OR = 1.86, 95% CI 1.01‒3.43), any-grade NEs (OR = 2.16, 95% CI 0.72‒6.44), and tocilizumab use for CRS management (OR = 2.27, 95% CI 0.86‒5.99).ConclusionsFindings highlight a potential positive benefit-risk profile of liso-cel over mosunetuzumab as a 3L+ treatment for R/R FL.

Project description:Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) and tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) are CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapies approved for the treatment of relapsed/refractory aggressive B cell lymphomas. We present a multicenter retrospective study among centers that prescribe either commercial product to evaluate usage patterns, safety and efficacy outcomes, and resource utilization. Data collection included all patients from 8 US centers who underwent apheresis between May 1, 2018, and July 31, 2019. Patient selection, toxicity management, and disease assessment followed institutional practices. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) were graded according to American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy consensus criteria, and tumor responses were assessed according to the Lugano 2014 classification scheme. A total of 260 patients underwent apheresis, including 168 (65%) for axi-cel and 92 (35%) for tisa-cel. Among the infused patients, the median age was 59 years for axi-cel recipients and 67 years for tisa-cel recipients (P < .001). The median time from apheresis to infusion was 28 days for axi-cel recipients and 45 days for tisa-cel recipients (P < .001). Sixty-one percent of the axi-cel recipients and 43% of the tisa-cel recipients would have been ineligible for the ZUMA-1 and JULIET trials, respectively. Grade ≥3 CRS occurred in 9% of axi-cel recipients and in 1% of tisa-cel recipients (P = .017), and grade ≥3 ICANS was seen in 38% of axi-cel recipients and 1% of tisa-cel recipients (P < .001). Inpatient cell therapy infusion was common (92% in axi-cel recipients, 37% in tisa-cel recipients). The day 90 overall response rate was 52% in the axi-cel group and 41% in the tisa-cel group (P = .113), with complete response in 44% and 35%, respectively (P = .319). Twelve-month progression-free survival (42% versus 32%; P = .206) and overall survival (62% versus 59%; P = .909) rates were comparable in the axi-cel and tisa-cel groups. Baseline characteristics differed between the 2 groups, although response rates and survival outcomes were comparable, albeit lower than those in the pivotal trials. Safety and resource utilization appear to be key differentiators between axi-cel and tisa-cel.

Dataset Information

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.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

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.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets