A Model to Estimate Cytokine Release Syndrome and Neurological Event Management Costs Associated With CAR T-Cell Therapy.

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies demonstrated efficacy in relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) but are associated with cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurological events (NE). We wanted to estimate the total cost of CRS and NE management among patients with relapsed/refractory LBCL treated with lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel), axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel), or tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) in the third- or later-line setting. An economic decision tree model was developed using clinical and economic data to estimate a weighted average per-patient adverse event (AE) management cost from a United States health care system perspective in 2020 dollars. In 2 predefined analyses, mean expected cost and 95% confidence intervals of the average treated patient were estimated via Monte Carlo simulations, with per-patient costs for each CAR T-cell therapy further stratified by AE and grade. In the base case, the overall weighted average per-patient cost was $18,718, $47,665, and $42,538 for liso-cel, axi-cel, and tisa-cel, respectively. The weighted average per-patient cost per CRS event was $8213, $20,442, and $26,009 for liso-cel, axi-cel, and tisa-cel, respectively; the weighted average per-patient cost per NE was $10,505, $27,223, and $16,528, respectively. Differences in the base-case scenario estimated total mean costs for liso-cel were -$28,947 and -$23,819 compared with axi-cel and tisa-cel, respectively. In the scenario analysis (alternative cost input), differences in the estimated total mean costs were -$24,498 for liso-cel versus axi-cel, and -$19,326 for liso-cel versus tisa-cel. Across the base case and scenario analysis, liso-cel had the lowest weighted average CRS and NE costs per treated patient compared with axi-cel and tisa-cel owing to lower incidence rates and symptom severity. These findings highlight the economic implications of differences in safety among CAR T-cell therapies.

Badaracco J ，Gitlin M ，Keating SJ 《-》

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.

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. 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. 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. 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.

Cummings Joyner AK ，Snider JT ，Wade SW ，Wang ST ，Buessing MG ，Johnson S ，Gergis U ... -  《-》

Real-World Outcomes with Chimeric Antigen Receptor T Cell Therapies in Large B Cell Lymphoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Jacobson CA ，Munoz J ，Sun F ，Kanters S ，Limbrick-Oldfield EH ，Spooner C ，Mignone K ，Ayuk F ，Sanderson R ，Whitmore J ，Wang Y ，Xu H ，Dickinson M ... -  《-》

Network meta-analysis of CAR T-Cell therapy for the treatment of 3L+ R/R LBCL after using published comparative studies.

Oluwole OO ，Neelapu SS ，Ray MD ，Limbrick-Oldfield EH ，Wade SW ，Kanters S ，Patel AR ，Locke FL ... -  《-》

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.

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. 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. 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. This analysis estimated that liso-cel is cost-effective compared with tisa-cel and axi-cel from a commercial US payer perspective.

Parker C ，Liu FF ，Deger KA ，Franco-Villalobos C ，Proskorovsky I ，Keating SJ ，Sorensen S ... -  《-》