Axicabtagene ciloleucel compared to standard of care in Swedish patients with large B-cell lymphoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis of the ZUMA-7 trial.

AIM: Our study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel), compared to standard of care (SOC) in Sweden for second-line (2L) treatment of adult transplant-intended diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients who relapse within 12 months from completion of, or are refractory to (early r/r), first-line (1L) chemoimmunotherapy. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness was assessed using a three-state partitioned survival model. Mixture cure models were used to extrapolate time-to-event data from the ZUMA-7 trial (NCT03391466) beyond the observational period. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed to test the robustness of the base case results, including an analysis that assumed no switching to off-protocol CAR T-cell therapy in subsequent lines in the SOC arm. RESULTS: The model estimated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of SEK 534,704 (EUR 50,303) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained over a lifetime horizon of 50 years, with an incremental cost of SEK 812,944 (EUR 76,479) and incremental QALY of 1.52 for axi-cel compared with SOC. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that axi-cel was cost-effective in 73% of the simulations when assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of SEK 1,000,000 (EUR 94,077) per QALY. The ICER was SEK 694,351 (EUR 65,313) in the scenario analysis where the costs and effects of treatment switching were not included. CONCLUSION: 2L treatment with axi-cel in transplant-intended DLBCL patients with early r/r after completing 1L chemoimmunotherapy was cost-effective compared to SOC in a Swedish setting. Administering axi-cel in 2L is cost-effective as it enhances the possibility of curing more patients, resulting in not just a survival advantage, but also a reduction in the burden on quality of life and cost of subsequent therapy. This will be advantageous to both patients and society.

Subcutaneous immunotherapy takes more than the time in the clinic.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the time use and both direct and indirect costs associated with subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) for adults with allergic rhinitis (AR) and caregivers of children with AR in the US. METHODS: We conducted a survey to assess the retrospective time use and direct costs of SCIT. The populations surveyed included adults and caregivers of children (aged 5-17) with symptomatic AR of moderate or higher severity who are currently receiving or have previously started allergy immunotherapy (AIT). The retrospectively collected, self-reported time consumption and direct costs per clinic visit when receiving SCIT were assessed as well as the productivity loss associated with SCIT. Data were analyzed using univariate descriptive statistics. RESULTS: The study included 106 adults with AR and 191 caregivers of children with AR. We found that the median time spent per visit to the clinic was 50 min for both groups, including travel time and time at the clinic. The direct costs related to each visit included parking fees, road tolls and other costs. Adults spent $10 on parking, $9 on tolls and $10 on other costs. Finally, a median of 4 h of work was missed for both the adult patients and the adults accompanying a child. CONCLUSIONS: We found that SCIT is associated with substantial direct patient costs and productivity loss for both adults with AR and caregivers of children with AR.