Comparative cost per responder analysis of ciltacabtagene autoleucel and real-world standard of care therapy in patients with lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma.

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Doris K Hansen, Xiaoxiao Lu, Omar Castaneda Puglianini, Eileen Zhang, Saad Z Usmani, Rameet Sachdev, Matthew Perciavalle, Denise De Wiest, Stephen Huo, Seina Lee, Zaina P Qureshi, Sundar Jagannath
{"title":"Comparative cost per responder analysis of ciltacabtagene autoleucel and real-world standard of care therapy in patients with lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma.","authors":"Doris K Hansen, Xiaoxiao Lu, Omar Castaneda Puglianini, Eileen Zhang, Saad Z Usmani, Rameet Sachdev, Matthew Perciavalle, Denise De Wiest, Stephen Huo, Seina Lee, Zaina P Qureshi, Sundar Jagannath","doi":"10.1080/14737167.2026.2634771","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) is a chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy currently approved for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). This study aimed to assess the value of cilta-cel against a real-world standard of care (RW-SoC) basket using a novel cost per responder (CPR) model.</p><p><strong>Research design and methods: </strong>The model was aligned with the patient population in the CARTITUDE-4 trial and incorporated progression-free survival (PFS), post-progression survival (PPS), and death states. The base-case analysis was conducted from a mixed US payer perspective with a 36-month time horizon, and modeled outcomes included the total cost per treated patient, total cost per complete responder, and cost per month during PFS.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the base-case analysis, total cost per treated patient over 36 months was estimated to be lower for cilta-cel ($792,243) compared with RW-SoC ($815,023), with the difference driven predominantly by the lower costs for cilta-cel over the PPS period. Total costs per complete responder and per month during PFS were $1,070,599 and $25,203 for cilta-cel compared with $5,101,186 and $38,018, respectively, for RW-SoC.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The CPR model suggests that cilta-cel offers substantial clinical and economic benefit for patients with RRMM compared with RW-SoC therapies.</p>","PeriodicalId":12244,"journal":{"name":"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research","volume":" ","pages":"369-378"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2026.2634771","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/3/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) is a chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy currently approved for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). This study aimed to assess the value of cilta-cel against a real-world standard of care (RW-SoC) basket using a novel cost per responder (CPR) model.

Research design and methods: The model was aligned with the patient population in the CARTITUDE-4 trial and incorporated progression-free survival (PFS), post-progression survival (PPS), and death states. The base-case analysis was conducted from a mixed US payer perspective with a 36-month time horizon, and modeled outcomes included the total cost per treated patient, total cost per complete responder, and cost per month during PFS.

Results: In the base-case analysis, total cost per treated patient over 36 months was estimated to be lower for cilta-cel ($792,243) compared with RW-SoC ($815,023), with the difference driven predominantly by the lower costs for cilta-cel over the PPS period. Total costs per complete responder and per month during PFS were $1,070,599 and $25,203 for cilta-cel compared with $5,101,186 and $38,018, respectively, for RW-SoC.

Conclusions: The CPR model suggests that cilta-cel offers substantial clinical and economic benefit for patients with RRMM compared with RW-SoC therapies.

来那度胺难治性多发性骨髓瘤患者西他他烯自体醇和现实世界护理标准治疗的成本比较分析。
背景:cilta- cell是一种嵌合抗原受体t细胞疗法,目前被批准用于治疗复发/难治性多发性骨髓瘤(RRMM)。本研究旨在评估cilta-cel对现实世界护理标准(RW-SoC)篮子的价值,使用一种新的每个应答者成本(CPR)模型。研究设计和方法:该模型与cartitde -4试验中的患者群体一致,并纳入无进展生存期(PFS)、进展后生存期(PPS)和死亡状态。基本病例分析是从美国混合付款人的角度进行的,时间跨度为36个月,模型结果包括每位治疗患者的总成本、每位完全应答者的总成本和PFS期间每月的成本。结果:在基本病例分析中,与RW-SoC(815,023美元)相比,cilta-cel在36个月内的每名治疗患者的总成本估计较低(792,243美元),差异主要是由于cilta-cel在PPS期间的成本较低。在PFS期间,cilta-cel的每个完全应答者和每月的总成本分别为1,070,599美元和25,203美元,而RW-SoC的总成本分别为5,101,186美元和38,018美元。结论:CPR模型表明,与RW-SoC治疗相比,cilta- cell对RRMM患者具有显著的临床和经济效益。
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
Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research
Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
4.30%
发文量
68
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research (ISSN 1473-7167) provides expert reviews on cost-benefit and pharmacoeconomic issues relating to the clinical use of drugs and therapeutic approaches. Coverage includes pharmacoeconomics and quality-of-life research, therapeutic outcomes, evidence-based medicine and cost-benefit research. All articles are subject to rigorous peer-review. The journal adopts the unique Expert Review article format, offering a complete overview of current thinking in a key technology area, research or clinical practice, augmented by the following sections: Expert Opinion – a personal view of the data presented in the article, a discussion on the developments that are likely to be important in the future, and the avenues of research likely to become exciting as further studies yield more detailed results Article Highlights – an executive summary of the author’s most critical points.
×
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
小红书