Cost-effectiveness of treating advanced melanoma with tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes based on an international randomized phase 3 clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: In a multicenter, open-label randomized phase 3 clinical trial conducted in the Netherlands and Denmark, treatment with ex vivo-expanded tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL-NKI/CCIT) from autologous melanoma tumor compared with ipilimumab improved progression-free survival in patients with unresectable stage IIIC-IV melanoma after failure of first-line or second-line treatment. Based on this trial, we conducted a cost-utility analysis. METHODS: A Markov decision model was constructed to estimate expected costs (expressed in 2021€) and outcomes (quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)) of TIL-NKI/CCIT versus ipilimumab in the Netherlands. The Danish setting was assessed in a scenario analysis. A modified societal perspective was applied over a lifetime horizon. TIL-NKI/CCIT production costs were estimated via activity-based costing. Through sensitivity analyses, uncertainties and their impact on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were assessed. RESULTS: Mean total undiscounted lifetime benefits were 4.47 life years (LYs) and 3.52 QALYs for TIL-NKI/CCIT and 3.33 LYs and 2.46 QALYs for ipilimumab. Total lifetime undiscounted costs in the Netherlands were €347,168 for TIL-NKI/CCIT (including €67,547 for production costs) compared with €433,634 for ipilimumab. Undiscounted lifetime cost in the Danish scenario were €337,309 and €436,135, respectively. This resulted in a dominant situation for TIL-NKI/CCIT compared with ipilimumab in both countries, meaning incremental QALYs were gained at lower costs. Survival probabilities, and utility in progressive disease affected the ICER most. CONCLUSION: Based on the data of a randomized phase 3 trial, treatment with TIL-NKI/CCIT in patients with unresectable stage IIIC-IV melanoma is cost-effective and cost-saving, both in the current Dutch and Danish setting. These findings led to inclusion of TIL-NKI/CCIT as insured care and treatment guidelines. Publicly funded development of the TIL-NKI/CCIT cell therapy shows realistic promise to further explore development of effective personalized treatment while warranting economic sustainability of healthcare systems.

What does cell therapy manufacturing cost? A framework and methodology to facilitate academic and other small-scale cell therapy manufacturing costings.

BACKGROUND AIMS: Recent technical and clinical advances with cell-based therapies (CBTs) hold great promise in the treatment of patients with rare diseases and those with high unmet medical need. Currently the majority of CBTs are developed and manufactured in specialized academic facilities. Due to small scale, unique characteristics and specific supply chain, CBT manufacturing is considered costly compared to more conventional medicinal products. As a result, biomedical researchers and clinicians are increasingly faced with cost considerations in CBT development. The objective of this research was to develop a costing framework and methodology for academic and other small-scale facilities that manufacture cell-based therapies. METHODS: We conducted an international multi-center costing study in four facilities in Europe using eight CBTs as case studies. This study includes costs from cell or tissue procurement to release of final product for clinical use. First, via interviews with research scientists, clinicians, biomedical scientists, pharmacists and technicians, we designed a high-level costing framework. Next, we developed a more detailed uniform methodology to allocate cost items. Costs were divided into steps (tissue procurement, manufacturing and fill-finish). The steps were each subdivided into cost categories (materials, equipment, personnel and facility), and each category was broken down into facility running (fixed) costs and operational (variable) costs. The methodology was tested via the case studies and validated in developer interviews. Costs are expressed in 2018 euros (€). RESULTS: The framework and methodology were applicable across facilities and proved sensitive to differences in product and facility characteristics. Case study cost estimates ranged between €23 033 and €190 799 Euros per batch, with batch yield varying between 1 and 88 doses. The cost estimations revealed hidden costs to developers and provided insights into cost drivers to help design manufacturing best practices. CONCLUSIONS: This framework and methodology provide step-by-step guidance to estimate manufacturing costs specifically for cell-based therapies manufactured in academic and other small-scale enterprises. The framework and methodology can be used to inform and plan cost-conscious strategies for CBTs.