IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v40y2022i9d10.1007_s40273-022-01169-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Cost Effectiveness of Axicabtagene Ciloleucel Versus Best Supportive Care in the Treatment of Adult Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Large B-Cell Lymphoma (LBCL) After Two or More Lines of Systemic Therapy in Canada

Author

Listed:
  • Christopher Hillis

    (McMaster University)

  • Colin Vicente

    (PIVINA Consulting Inc.)

  • Graeme Ball

    (Gilead Sciences Canada Inc.)

Abstract

Background and Objective Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) received marketing authorisation in Canada for the treatment of relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma after two or more lines of systemic therapy, and the clinical and economic value of axi-cel to patients and the healthcare system should be examined. The objective of this analysis is to determine, from societal and public healthcare payer perspectives, the cost effectiveness of axi-cel versus best supportive care for patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma in Canada. Methods A pharmacoeconomic model was developed and populated with clinical data derived from the ZUMA-1 and SCHOLAR-1 studies using a propensity score-matched comparison. A partitioned survival mixture-cure modelling approach was taken to characterise the potential curative effect of axi-cel therapy in large B-cell lymphoma. Healthcare resource utilisation and adverse event data were based on results from ZUMA-1, and utility values were derived from ZUMA-1 data supplemented with published literature. Costs (in 2021 Canadian dollars) were taken from publicly available Canadian cost databases and published literature. Benefits and costs were discounted at 1.5% per year, and sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the results. Results In the base case, axi-cel generated an incremental 6.2 life-years compared to best supportive care, corresponding to 4.6 additional quality-adjusted life-years, and was associated with $606,010 in additional costs. The incremental cost-utility ratio was $132,747 per quality-adjusted life-year gained compared with best supportive care from a societal perspective ($106,392 per quality-adjusted life-year gained from a public healthcare payer perspective). Key drivers of the analysis included progression-free survival and overall survival values for axi-cel. Conclusions The results of this analysis suggest that axi-cel may be considered a cost-effective allocation of resources compared with best supportive care for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma in Canada.

Suggested Citation

  • Christopher Hillis & Colin Vicente & Graeme Ball, 2022. "The Cost Effectiveness of Axicabtagene Ciloleucel Versus Best Supportive Care in the Treatment of Adult Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Large B-Cell Lymphoma (LBCL) After Two or More Lines of Sys," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(9), pages 917-928, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:40:y:2022:i:9:d:10.1007_s40273-022-01169-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-022-01169-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-022-01169-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40273-022-01169-z?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:40:y:2022:i:9:d:10.1007_s40273-022-01169-z. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.