A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma Treatment Pathways in the United States.

IF 1.9 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
MDM Policy and Practice Pub Date : 2025-06-25 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1177/23814683251345780
Anik R Patel, Bradley Kievit, Ken Hasegawa, Markqayne Ray, Rishika Sharma, Sarahmaria Hofmann, Rob Blissett, Frederick L Locke
{"title":"A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma Treatment Pathways in the United States.","authors":"Anik R Patel, Bradley Kievit, Ken Hasegawa, Markqayne Ray, Rishika Sharma, Sarahmaria Hofmann, Rob Blissett, Frederick L Locke","doi":"10.1177/23814683251345780","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background.</b> Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies are approved as second-line (2L) or later therapy for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Recently, bispecific T-cell antibodies (BsAbs) have been approved as third-line (3L) treatments. The cost-effectiveness of different treatment sequences is unknown. This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) compared with other treatment options for 2L DLBCL, from a US health care perspective at a cost-effectiveness threshold of $150,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). <b>Design.</b> This economic evaluation used a discrete event simulation decision. Model inputs were derived from 8 clinical trials and the published literature. Simulated patients received 2L axi-cel followed by 3L treatments, which were compared with treatment sequences of 2L intended autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), polatuzumab vedotin with bendamustine and rituximab (Pola-BR), tafasitamab with lenalidomide (tafa-len), or rituximab with gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (R-GemOx), all of which were followed by 3L treatments (salvage chemotherapy, BsAbs, or axi-cel). In addition, axi-cel was compared directly with glofitamab and epcoritamab in 3L. Costs and QALYs, discounted at 3.0%, were used to derive incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and net monetary benefits (NMBs). <b>Results.</b> In the 2L base case, axi-cel was cost-effective compared with intended ASCT (ICER $145,004/QALY), which was cost-effective compared with R-GemOx (ICER $9,495/QALY). Axi-cel maximized NMB at $150,000 and $200,000/QALY thresholds, whereas intended ASCT maximized NMB at $100,000/QALY. In 3L-focused comparisons with epcoritamab and glofitamab, axi-cel was dominant and cost-effective (ICER $122,224/QALY), respectively. Axi-cel maximized NMB at $150,000 and $200,000/QALY thresholds, whereas glofitamab maximized NMB at $100,000/QALY. <b>Conclusions.</b> The findings of the study suggest that although other treatments were cost-effective at lower thresholds, axi-cel is a cost-effective treatment option in 2L/3L settings in the United States.</p><p><strong>Highlights: </strong>This study investigated whether axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) is cost-effective in second-line (2L) and third-line (3L) treatment sequences in the current relapsed or refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) treatment paradigm.Using a novel treatment sequencing model, axi-cel was found to be cost-effective in both 2L treatment sequences and in direct comparisons with 3L bispecific T-cell antibodies.These findings suggest that axi-cel is a cost-effective treatment for R/R DLBCL regardless of treatment line positioning.</p>","PeriodicalId":36567,"journal":{"name":"MDM Policy and Practice","volume":"10 1","pages":"23814683251345780"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12198509/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MDM Policy and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23814683251345780","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background. Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies are approved as second-line (2L) or later therapy for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Recently, bispecific T-cell antibodies (BsAbs) have been approved as third-line (3L) treatments. The cost-effectiveness of different treatment sequences is unknown. This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) compared with other treatment options for 2L DLBCL, from a US health care perspective at a cost-effectiveness threshold of $150,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Design. This economic evaluation used a discrete event simulation decision. Model inputs were derived from 8 clinical trials and the published literature. Simulated patients received 2L axi-cel followed by 3L treatments, which were compared with treatment sequences of 2L intended autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), polatuzumab vedotin with bendamustine and rituximab (Pola-BR), tafasitamab with lenalidomide (tafa-len), or rituximab with gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (R-GemOx), all of which were followed by 3L treatments (salvage chemotherapy, BsAbs, or axi-cel). In addition, axi-cel was compared directly with glofitamab and epcoritamab in 3L. Costs and QALYs, discounted at 3.0%, were used to derive incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and net monetary benefits (NMBs). Results. In the 2L base case, axi-cel was cost-effective compared with intended ASCT (ICER $145,004/QALY), which was cost-effective compared with R-GemOx (ICER $9,495/QALY). Axi-cel maximized NMB at $150,000 and $200,000/QALY thresholds, whereas intended ASCT maximized NMB at $100,000/QALY. In 3L-focused comparisons with epcoritamab and glofitamab, axi-cel was dominant and cost-effective (ICER $122,224/QALY), respectively. Axi-cel maximized NMB at $150,000 and $200,000/QALY thresholds, whereas glofitamab maximized NMB at $100,000/QALY. Conclusions. The findings of the study suggest that although other treatments were cost-effective at lower thresholds, axi-cel is a cost-effective treatment option in 2L/3L settings in the United States.

Highlights: This study investigated whether axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) is cost-effective in second-line (2L) and third-line (3L) treatment sequences in the current relapsed or refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) treatment paradigm.Using a novel treatment sequencing model, axi-cel was found to be cost-effective in both 2L treatment sequences and in direct comparisons with 3L bispecific T-cell antibodies.These findings suggest that axi-cel is a cost-effective treatment for R/R DLBCL regardless of treatment line positioning.

美国弥漫性大b细胞淋巴瘤治疗途径的成本-效果分析
背景。嵌合抗原受体(CAR) t细胞疗法被批准作为二线(2L)或后期治疗弥漫性大b细胞淋巴瘤(DLBCL)。最近,双特异性t细胞抗体(BsAbs)已被批准作为三线(3L)治疗。不同治疗顺序的成本效益尚不清楚。本研究旨在评估axicabtagene ciloleucel (axis -cel)与其他治疗方案相比治疗2L DLBCL的成本效益,从美国医疗保健的角度来看,每个质量调整生命年(QALY)的成本效益阈值为150,000美元。设计。这种经济评估使用了离散事件模拟决策。模型输入来自8项临床试验和已发表的文献。模拟患者接受2L轴细胞后3L治疗,与2L自体干细胞移植(ASCT)、polatuzumab vedotin联合苯达莫司汀和利妥昔单抗(Pola-BR)、他法西他单抗联合来那度胺(tfa -len)或利妥昔单抗联合吉西他滨和奥沙利铂(R-GemOx)的治疗序列进行比较,所有这些治疗均随后进行3L治疗(补补性化疗、bsab或轴细胞)。此外,axi-cel在3L时与格非他单抗和依霉素单抗直接比较。成本和质量年以3.0%折现,用于获得增量成本-效果比(ICERs)和净货币效益(nmb)。结果。在2L基准病例中,与预期ASCT相比,axis -cel具有成本效益(ICER为145,004美元/QALY),与R-GemOx (ICER为9,495美元/QALY)相比具有成本效益。axis -cel在15万美元和20万美元/QALY阈值时最大化了NMB,而预期ASCT在10万美元/QALY时最大化了NMB。在与epcoritamab和glofitamab的3l重点比较中,axis -cel分别占主导地位和成本效益(ICER $122,224/QALY)。axis -cel在15万美元和20万美元/QALY阈值时最大化NMB,而glofitamab在10万美元/QALY阈值时最大化NMB。结论。研究结果表明,尽管其他治疗方法在较低阈值下具有成本效益,但在美国,axis -cel是2L/3L环境下具有成本效益的治疗选择。本研究调查了axicabtagene ciloleucel (axis -cel)在当前复发或难治性(R/R)弥漫性大b细胞淋巴瘤(DLBCL)治疗模式中的二线(2L)和三线(3L)治疗序列是否具有成本效益。使用一种新的治疗测序模型,axis -cel被发现在2L治疗序列和与3L双特异性t细胞抗体的直接比较中都具有成本效益。这些研究结果表明,无论治疗线定位如何,axis -cel都是一种具有成本效益的治疗R/R DLBCL。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
MDM Policy and Practice
MDM Policy and Practice Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
28
审稿时长
15 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信