Cost-Effectiveness of Chimeric Antigen Receptor T Cell Therapy in Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Large B Cell Lymphoma: No Impact of Site of Care
Alice Kate Cummings Joyner, Julia Thornton Snider, Sally W. Wade, Si‐Tien Wang, Marric G. Buessing, Scott J. Johnson, Usama Gergis
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Cost-effectiveness data on chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapies for relapsed/refractory large B cell lymphoma (R/R LBCL), accounting for inpatient/outpatient site of care (site), are sparse. METHODS: This payer model compares lifetime costs/benefits for CAR T cell-treated (axicabtagene ciloleucel [axi-cel], lisocabtagene maraleucel [liso-cel], tisagenlecleucel [tisa-cel]) patients with R/R LBCL in the USA. Three-month post-infusion costs were derived from unit costs and real-world all-payer (RW) site-specific utilization data for 1175 patients with diffuse R/R LBCL (CAR T cell therapy October 2017-September 2020). Therapy- and site-specific grade 3+ cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurologic event (NE) incidences were imputed from published trials. Lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and long-term costs were calculated from therapy-specific overall and progression-free survival data, adjusted for differences in trial populations. The base case used 17% outpatient site (RW) for all therapies. ZUMA-1 trial cohorts 1/2 informed other axi-cel base case inputs; ZUMA-1 cohorts 4/6 data (updated safety management) supported scenario analyses. RESULTS: Base case total costs for axi-cel exceeded liso-cel ($637 K versus $621 K) and tisa-cel ($631 K versus $577 K) costs. Three-month post-infusion costs were $57 K to $59 K across all therapies. Total QALYs for axi-cel also exceeded those for liso-cel (7.7 versus 5.9) and tisa-cel (7.2 versus 5.0) with incremental costs per QALY gained of $9 K versus liso-cel and $25 K versus tisa-cel. Base case incremental net monetary benefit was $255 K (95% confidence interval (CI) $181-326 K) for axi-cel versus liso-cel, and $280 K (95% CI $200-353 K) versus tisa-cel. Longer survival with axi-cel conferred higher lifetime costs. In all scenarios (e.g., varied outpatient proportions, CRS/NE incidence), axi-cel was cost-effective versus both comparators at a maximum willingness-to-pay of under $26 K/QALY as a result of axi-cel's higher incremental survival gains and quality-of-life. CONCLUSIONS: Axi-cel is a cost-effective CAR T cell therapy for patients with R/R LBCL compared to tisa-cel and liso-cel. Site of care does not impact the cost-effectiveness of CAR T cell therapy.