Cost-effectiveness of second-line axicabtagene ciloleucel in relapsed refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma
Swetha Kambhampati, Monica Saumoy, Yecheskel Schneider, Steve Serrao, Pejman Solaimani, Lihua E. Budde, Matthew Mei, Leslie Popplewell, Tanya Siddiqi, Jasmine M. Zain, Stephen J. Forman, Larry W. Kwak, Steven T. Rosen, Alexey V. Danilov, Alex F. Herrera, Nikhil R. Thiruvengadam
Abstract
The ZUMA-7 (Efficacy of Axicabtagene Ciloleucel Compared to Standard of Care Therapy in Subjects With Relapsed/Refractory Diffuse Large B Cell Lymphoma) study showed that axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) improved event-free survival (EFS) compared with standard of care (SOC) salvage chemoimmunotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplant in primary refractory/early relapsed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL); this led to its recent US Food and Drug Administration approval in this setting. We modeled a hypothetical cohort of US adults (mean age, 65 years) with primary refractory/early relapsed DLBCL by developing a Markov model (lifetime horizon) to model the cost-effectiveness of second-line axi-cel compared with SOC using a range of plausible long-term outcomes. EFS and OS were estimated from ZUMA-7. Outcome measures were reported in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Assuming a 5-year EFS of 35% with second-line axi-cel and 10% with SOC, axi-cel was cost-effective at a WTP of $150 000 per QALY ($93 547 per QALY). axi-cel was no longer cost-effective if its 5-year EFS was ≤26.4% or if it cost more than $972 061 at a WTP of $150 000. Second-line axi-cel was the cost-effective strategy in 73% of the 10 000 Monte Carlo iterations at a WTP of $150 000. If the absolute benefit in EFS is maintained over time, second-line axi-cel for aggressive relapsed/refractory DLBCL is cost-effective compared with SOC at a WTP of $150 000 per QALY. However, its cost-effectiveness is highly dependent on long-term outcomes. Routine use of second-line chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy would add significantly to health care expenditures in the United States (more than $1 billion each year), even when used in a high-risk subpopulation. Further reductions in the cost of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy are needed to be affordable in many regions of the world.