Cost-effectiveness of second-line axicabtagene ciloleucel in relapsed refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of polatuzumab vedotin combined with chemoimmunotherapy in untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

In patients with treatment-naive diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), the POLARIX study (A Study Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of Polatuzumab Vedotin With Rituximab-Cyclophosphamide, Doxorubicin, and Prednisone [R-CHP] Versus Rituximab-Cyclophosphamide, Doxorubicin, Vincristine, and Prednisone [R-CHOP] in Participants With Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma) reported a 6.5% improvement in the 2-year progression-free survival (PFS), with no difference in overall survival (OS) or safety using polatuzumab vedotin, rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (pola-R-CHP) compared with standard rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP). We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of pola-R-CHP for DLBCL. We modeled a hypothetical cohort of US adults (mean age, 65 years) with treatment-naive DLBCL by developing a Markov model (lifetime horizon) to model the cost-effectiveness of pola-R-CHP and R-CHOP using a range of plausible long-term outcomes. Progression rates and OS were estimated from POLARIX. 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 PFS of 69.6% with pola-R-CHP and 62.7% with R-CHOP, pola-R-CHP was cost-effective at a WTP of $150 000 (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, $84 308/QALY). pola-R-CHP was no longer cost-effective if its 5-year PFS was 66.1% or lower. One-way sensitivity analysis revealed that pola-R-CHP is cost-effective up to a cost of $276 312 at a WTP of $150 000. pola-R-CHP was the cost-effective strategy in 56.6% of the 10 000 Monte Carlo iterations at a WTP of $150 000. If the absolute benefit in PFS is maintained over time, pola-R-CHP is cost-effective compared with R-CHOP at a WTP of $150 000/QALY. However, its cost-effectiveness is highly dependent on its long-term outcomes and costs of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy. Routine usage of pola-R-CHP would add significantly to health care expenditures. Price reductions or identification of subgroups that have maximal benefit would improve cost-effectiveness.