Evolving Evidence-Based Value Assessment of One-Time Therapies: Tisagenlecleucel as a Case Study

Background Economic evaluation of one-time therapies during reimbursement decision-making is challenging due to uncertain long-term outcomes. The availability of 5-year outcome data from the ELIANA trial and real-world evidence of tisagenlecleucel, the first chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy, presents an opportunity to re-evaluate the predictions of prior cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs). Objective To conduct a systematic literature review (SLR) of prior CEAs of tisagenlecleucel for pediatric/young adult relapsed or refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia (r/r ALL) and evaluate the impact of recently available 5-year efficacy data from ELIANA and advances in CAR-T manufacturing in an updated CEA model. Methods OVID MEDLINE/Embase and health technology assessment (HTA) databases were searched for full-text economic evaluations in English reporting cost-effectiveness results for tisagenlecleucel for r/r ALL. Evaluations with publicly reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were included in the SLR. Study screening and data abstraction were conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Data extracted included the country/currency, perspective, clinical trial evidence, model structures, long-term efficacy extrapolation approaches (i.e., overall survival [OS]), time horizon, discount rates, and outcomes (i.e., life years [LY], quality-adjusted LY [QALY], and ICERs). The CEA model reported in Wakase et al. was updated using 5-year OS data from ELIANA and the CAR-T infusion rate informed by real-world practice. Results Sixteen records corresponding to 15 unique studies were included in the SLR (11 publications and 5 HTA reports); all were conducted from the health care system perspective of the respective countries. Most studies found tisagenlecleucel to be cost effective, but all studies’ projected 3- and 5-year OS rates for tisagenlecleucel were lower than the observed 3- and 5-year rates, respectively, derived from 5-year ELIANA data. When applying updated OS projections from the most recent ELIANA data cut and higher infusion rates of 92.5% (per the real-world infusion rate)—96.0% (per the manufacturer success rate) to the CEA of Wakase et al., the associated QALYs for tisagenlecleucel increased from 11.6 to 14.6–15.0, and LYs increased from 13.3 to 17.0–17.5. Accordingly, the ICERs for tisagenlecleucel decreased from ¥2,035,071 to ¥1,787,988–¥1,789,048 versus blinatumomab and from ¥2,644,702 to ¥2,257,837–¥2,275,181 versus clofarabine combination therapy in the updated CEA model. Conclusions and Relevance Projections at launch of the likely cost effectiveness of tisagenlecleucel appear to have underestimated its ultimate economic value given more recent trial and real-world data. To balance uncertainty in initial valuation with the need to provide access to novel oncology therapies, payers can consider flexible reimbursement policies alongside ongoing assessments as new data emerge.