Cost Effectiveness of Blinatumomab Versus Inotuzumab Ozogamicin in Adult Patients with Relapsed or Refractory B-Cell Precursor Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia in the United States.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The TOWER and INO-VATE-ALL trials demonstrated the efficacy and safety of blinatumomab and inotuzumab ozogamicin (inotuzumab), respectively, versus standard-of-care (SOC) chemotherapy in adults with relapsed or refractory (R/R) B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). The cost effectiveness of blinatumomab versus inotuzumab has not previously been examined. METHODS: Cost effectiveness of blinatumomab versus inotuzumab in R/R B-cell precursor ALL patients with one or no prior salvage therapy from a United States (US) payer perspective was estimated using a partitioned survival model. Health outcomes were estimated based on published aggregate data from INO-VATE-ALL and individual patient data from TOWER weighted to match patients in INO-VATE-ALL using matching adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC). Analyses were conducted using five approaches relating to use of anchored versus unanchored comparisons of health outcomes and, for the anchored comparisons, the reference treatment to which treatment effects on health outcomes were applied. Estimates from TOWER including the probabilities of complete remission and allogeneic stem-cell transplant (allo-SCT), overall and event-free survival, utilities, duration of therapy, and use of subsequent therapies were MAIC adjusted to match INO-VATE-ALL. Costs of treatment, adverse events, allo-SCT, subsequent therapies, and terminal care were from published sources. A 50-year time horizon and 3% annual discount rate were used. RESULTS: Incremental costs for blinatumomab versus inotuzumab ranged from US$7023 to US$36,244, depending on the approach used for estimating relative effectiveness. Incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) ranged from 0.54 to 1.78. Cost effectiveness for blinatumomab versus inotuzumab ranged from US$4006 to US$20,737 per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Blinatumomab is estimated to be cost effective versus inotuzumab in R/R B-cell precursor ALL adults who have received one or no prior salvage therapy from a US payer perspective.

Tisagenlecleucel for the Treatment of Relapsed or Refractory B-cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukaemia in People Aged up to 25 Years: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's (NICE's) Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process, Novartis submitted evidence on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of tisagenlecleucel for treating paediatric and young adult patients (under the age of 25 years) with relapsed or refractory (r/r) B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL). This article presents a summary of the Evidence Review Group's (ERG's) independent review of the evidence submission, the committee's deliberations, and the subsequent development of NICE guidance for the use of tisagenlecleucel on the National Health Service (NHS) in England. Tisagenlecleucel is a chimeric antigen receptor-modified T-cell (CAR-T) product, the first of this emerging therapeutic class to be considered by NICE in this indication. The company's evidence submission was based upon three single-arm, phase II studies: ELIANA, ENSIGN, and B2101J. These trials demonstrated a beneficial effect of tisagenlecleucel, with significant extensions in event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) compared to historical control datasets on blinatumomab and salvage chemotherapy. Adverse events were common; 77% of patients suffered from cytokine release syndrome (CRS), 56% of whom required intensive care unit-level care. The ERG did not consider clofarabine monotherapy an appropriate proxy for salvage chemotherapy. The company presented a hybrid cost-effectiveness model, combining a decision tree and three-state partitioned survival model structure. The majority of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained were generated through additional life-years in the extrapolated 'long-term survival' phase of the model, where patients were assumed to be 'cured'. The ERG considered the results to be subject to substantial uncertainty, due in part to immature trial data, unresolved long-term treatment effects, and a lack of appropriate comparator data. The ERG implemented a number of changes to the company's model in an alternative base case, producing deterministic incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of £45,397 per QALY gained versus salvage chemotherapy, and £27,732 versus blinatumomab. The probabilistic model produced ICERs of £48,265 per QALY gained versus salvage chemotherapy, and £29,501 versus blinatumomab. The committee considered the ERG's analysis to be most closely aligned with their preferred assumptions, and did not consider tisagenlecleucel to meet both of the end-of-life (EoL) criteria. In recognition of the innovative nature of tisagenlecleucel, and the present immaturity of ongoing clinical trials, the committee considered further data collection would be valuable in resolving uncertainties around OS, the technology's novel mechanism of action, and the management of CRS and B-cell aplasia. The committee therefore recommended tisagenlecleucel for use in the Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF) until the conclusion of the ELIANA study (June 2023). This appraisal highlighted the difficulty of interpreting EoL criteria in the context of curative therapies and the valuation of cure versus extension of life. Further clarification of NICE's position in these situations may be necessary to ensure consistency and equity in their decision-making.

The Clinical and Cost Effectiveness of Inotuzumab Ozogamicin for the Treatment of Adult Relapsed or Refractory B-Cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukaemia: An Evidence Review Group Evaluation of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited Pfizer, the manufacturer of inotuzumab ozogamicin (henceforth inotuzumab), to submit clinical- and cost-effectiveness evidence for inotuzumab as part of NICE's single technology appraisal process. The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and the Centre for Health Economics, both at the University of York, were commissioned as the independent evidence review group (ERG). The clinical-effectiveness data were from a multicentre randomised controlled trial that compared inotuzumab with standard of care (SoC), where SoC was the investigator's choice of chemotherapy. Inotuzumab demonstrated statistically significant improvements in response rates or in the proportion of patients progressing to haematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) but failed to meet the second primary objective of longer overall survival. Treatment-emergent adverse events were more frequent in the SoC arm, except veno-occlusive disease, which was more frequent in the inotuzumab arm. The company's economic model split patients into three post-hoc subgroups and used a partitioned survival approach within each group, with a cure assumption 3 years after receiving HSCT. In contrast with the trial results, the economic model estimated substantial improvement in survival with inotuzumab compared with SoC, providing an additional 5.2 life-years and 2.2 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) using a discount rate of 1.5% per annum. The ERG's critique highlighted a number of concerns, including the use of a post-hoc post-randomisation patient subset for extrapolation, the choice of a 1.5% discount rate, the complexity of the parametric modelling, the assumption of further treatment benefit post-HSCT, the nature of the cure assumption, and the length of inpatient stay while receiving treatment. The combination of the ERG's adjustments resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £122,174 per QALY gained using Kaplan-Meier survival estimates and £114,078 per QALY gained with parametric survival models fit to the trial data. The final determination of the appraisal followed four NICE Appraisal Committee meetings, an appeal by the company and other stakeholders, two patient access schemes, and a company response to each appraisal consultation. The final ICER post-consultation was between £33,749 and £37,497 per QALY gained compared with SoC (excluding the confidential discount for blinatumomab received as subsequent therapy). The Appraisal Committee concluded that the ICER for inotuzumab was within the range usually considered cost effective for end-of-life care and recommended inotuzumab within its licensed indication.

Cost comparison by treatment arm and center-level variations in cost and inpatient days on the phase III high-risk B acute lymphoblastic leukemia trial AALL0232.

The Children's Oncology Group (COG) develops and implements multi-institutional clinical trials with the primary goal of assessing the efficacy and safety profile of treatment regimens for various pediatric cancers. However, the monetary costs of treatment regimens are not measured. AALL0232 was a COG randomized phase III trial for children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia that found that dexamethasone (DEX) was a more effective glucocorticoid than prednisone (PRED) in patients younger than 10 years, but PRED was equally effective and less toxic in older patients. In addition, high-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX) led to better survival than escalating doses of methotrexate (C-MTX). Cost data from the Pediatric Health Information System database were merged with clinical data from the COG AALL0232 trial. Total and component costs were compared between treatment arms and across hospitals. Inpatient costs were higher in the HD-MTX and DEX arms when compared to the C-MTX and PRED arms at the end of therapy. There was no difference in cost between these arms at last follow-up. Considerable variation in total costs existed across centers to deliver the same therapy that was driven by differences in inpatient days and pharmacy costs. The more effective regimens were found to be more expensive during therapy but were ultimately cost-neutral in longer term follow-up. The variations in cost across centers suggest an opportunity to standardize resource utilization for patients receiving similar therapies, which could translate into reduced healthcare expenditures.

Retrospective chart review of hospitalizations and costs associated with the treatment of adults with Philadelphia-negative B-cell relapsed or refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia in Belgium.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify hospitalizations and costs among adults with Philadelphia-negative relapsed or refractory (R/R) B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) who received current salvage chemotherapies in Belgium. METHODS: A retrospective chart review identified patients aged ≥18 years and hospitalized between 2005 and 2015 for Ph-negative R/R B-cell ALL. Data were collected from the index date (first diagnosis of R/R ALL) until death or loss to follow-up. The salvage chemotherapy period was defined as the first chemotherapy hospitalization after the index date to the earliest of death, loss to follow-up, last chemotherapy dose plus 30 days, or initiation of hematological stem cell transplantation (HSCT). The primary endpoint was the percent of time in the hospital during the salvage chemotherapy period. Hospitalization costs were reported from the public health care payer perspective. RESULTS: Nineteen patients were included, with median age of 37 years. The average proportion of time patients spent in the hospital during the salvage chemotherapy period was 50.5%. From the index date to death, patients received a mean of 1.8 lines of chemotherapy, most commonly hyper-CVAD (31%). There was a mean of 5.5 inpatient hospitalizations and 40.1 outpatient visits with 40.8 outpatient lab tests. Mean costs per patient were €79,973 for hospitalization (excluding HSCT), €26,337 for HSCT, €21,007 for chemotherapy drugs, and €6,341 for outpatient management, resulting in a total cost from the payer's perspective of €133,965 per patient. CONCLUSION: Adults with Ph-negative R/R ALL spend half the time receiving salvage chemotherapy in the hospital. Their treatment is associated with large reimbursement costs in Belgium.