Cost-Effectiveness of Axicabtagene Ciloleucel for Adult Patients With Relapsed or Refractory Follicular Lymphoma in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: The results of a recent single-arm trial (ZUMA-5) of axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) for relapsed/refractory (r/r) follicular lymphoma (FL) demonstrated high rates of durable response and tolerable toxicity among treated patients. To quantify the value of axi-cel compared with standard of care (SOC) to manage r/r FL patients who have had at least 2 prior lines of systemic therapy (3L+), a cost-effectiveness model was developed from a US third-party payer perspective. METHODS: A 3-state partitioned-survival cost-effectiveness model was developed with a lifetime horizon. Patient-level analyses of the 36-month ZUMA-5 (axi-cel) and SCHOLAR-5 (SOC) studies were used to extrapolate progression-free and overall survivals. After 5 years of survival, an estimated 40% of the modeled population was assumed to experience long-term remission based on literature. Results include the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) measured as incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. One-way sensitivity analysis, probabilistic sensitivity analysis, and scenario analyses were performed. All outcomes were discounted 3% per year. RESULTS: Axi-cel led to an increase of 4.28 life-years, 3.64 QALYs, and a total cost increase of $321 192 relative to SOC, resulting in an ICER of $88 300 per QALY. Across all parameters varied in the one-way sensitivity analysis, the ICER varied between $133 030 and $67 277. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, axi-cel had a 99% probability of being cost-effective across 5000 iterations using a $150 000 willingness-to-pay threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Given the robustness of the model results and sensitivity analyses, axi-cel is expected to be a cost-effective treatment in 3L+ r/r FL.

Cost-effectiveness of treating relapsed or refractory 3L+ follicular lymphoma with axicabtagene ciloleucel vs mosunetuzumab in the United States.

Introduction: Novel therapies for 3L+ relapsed/refractory (r/r) follicular lymphoma (FL) have been approved recently by the US Food and Drug Administration including anti-CD19 CAR-T therapies such as axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) and CD20 × CD3 T-cell-engaging bispecific monoclonal antibodies such as mosunetuzumab (mosun). The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of axi-cel compared to mosun in 3L+ r/r FL patients from a US third-party payer perspective. Methods: A three-state (progression-free, progressed disease, and death) partitioned-survival model was used to compare two treatments over a lifetime horizon in a hypothetical cohort of US adults (age ≥18) receiving 3L+ treatment for r/r FL. ZUMA-5 and GO29781 trial data were used to inform progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Mosun survival was modeled via hazard ratios (HRs) applied to axi-cel survival curves. The PFS HR value was estimated via a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) based on mosun pseudo-individual patient data and adjusted axi-cel data to account for trial populations differences. One-way sensitivity analysis (OWSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were conducted. Scenario analyses included: 1) the mosun HRs were applied to the weighted (adjusted) ZUMA-5 24-month data to most exactly reflect the MAIC, 2) mosun HR values were applied to axi-cel 48-month follow-up data, and 3) recent axi-cel health state utility values in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients. Results: The analysis estimated increases of 1.82 LY and 1.89 QALY for axi-cel compared to mosun. PFS for axi-cel patients was 6.42 LY vs. 1.60 LY for mosun. Increase of $257,113 in the progression-free state was driven by one-time axi-cel treatment costs. Total incremental costs for axi-cel were $204,377, resulting in an ICER of $108,307/QALY gained. The OWSA led to ICERs ranging from $240,255 to $75,624, with all but two parameters falling below $150,000/QALY. In the PSA, axi-cel had an 64% probability of being cost-effective across 5,000 iterations using a $150,000 willingness-to-pay threshold. Scenarios one and two resulted in ICERs of $105,353 and $102,695, respectively. Discussion: This study finds that axi-cel is cost-effective compared to mosun at the commonly cited $150,000/QALY US willingness-to-pay threshold, with robust results across a range of sensitivity analyses accounting for parameter uncertainty.

Network meta-analysis of CAR T-Cell therapy for the treatment of 3L+ R/R LBCL after using published comparative studies.

INTRODUCTION: Studies have compared chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies and salvage chemotherapy in relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) patients, but further evidence of their relative effectiveness is warranted. METHODS: Our systematic review identified studies comparing efficacy and safety outcomes of axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel), lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) and tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) trials to salvage chemotherapy cohorts in LBCL patients with ≥2 prior lines of treatment; and an extended evidence network included indirect comparisons comparing CAR T-cell therapies. We conducted network meta-analyzes using Bayesian hierarchical modeling. RESULTS: Three studies comparing ZUMA-1 (axi-cel), TRANSCEND (liso-cel) and JULIET (tisa-cel) trials to salvage chemotherapy within the SCHOLAR-1 cohort were identified. Axi-cel (odds ratio [OR]:5.63; 95% credible interval [CrI]:2.66-12.42) and liso-cel (OR:4.26; 95%CrI:2.33-7.93) showed a significant increased overall response rate compared to tisa-cel, but not to one-another. Axi-cel demonstrated significant improvements in overall survival relative to liso-cel (hazard ratio [HR]:0.54; 95%CrI:0.37-0.79) and tisa-cel (HR:0.47; 95%CrI:0.26-0.88). Higher rates of grade ≥3 neurological events were observed with axi-cel than with tisa-cel and liso-cel. CONCLUSIONS: We highlight important differences in clinical outcomes between CAR T-cell therapies. Axi-cel demonstrated improved overall survival compared to tisa-cel and liso-cel, and both axi-cel and liso-cel showed higher response rates compared to tisa-cel.

Cost-effectiveness of axicabtagene ciloleucel versus tisagenlecleucel for the treatment of 3L + relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma in the United States: incorporating longer survival results.

AIMS: To provide an update on the cost-effectiveness of the chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) and tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) for the treatment of relapsed/refractory (r/r) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) among patients who have previously received ≥2 lines of systemic therapy using more mature clinical trial data cuts (60 months for axi-cel overall survival [OS] and 45 months for tisa-cel OS and progression-free survival [PFS]). METHODS: A partitioned survival model consisting of three health states (pre-progression, post-progression and death) was used to estimate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs associated with axi-cel and tisa-cel over a lifetime horizon. PFS and OS inputs for axi-cel and tisa-cel were based on a previously published matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparison (MAIC). Long-term OS and PFS were extrapolated using parametric survival mixture cure models (PS-MCMs). Costs of CAR-T cell therapy drug acquisition and administration, conditioning chemotherapy, apheresis, CAR T-specific monitoring, stem cell transplant, hospitalization, adverse events, routine care, and terminal care were sourced from US cost databases. Health state utilities were derived from previous publications. Model inputs were varied using a range of sensitivity and scenario analyses. RESULTS: Compared with tisa-cel, axi-cel resulted in 2.51 additional QALYs and $50,185 additional costs (an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] of $19,994 per QALY gained). In probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA), the ICER for axi-cel versus tisa-cel was ≤$50,000/QALY in 99.4% of simulations and ≤$33,500 in 99% of simulations. Axi-cel remained cost-effective versus tisa-cel (assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY) across a range of scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: With longer-term survival data, axi-cel continues to represent a cost-effective option versus tisa-cel for treatment of r/r LBCL among patients who have previously received ≥2 lines of systemic therapy, from a US payer perspective.

Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparisons of Axicabtagene Ciloleucel to Mosunetuzumab for the Treatment of Relapsed/Refractory Follicular Lymphoma.

Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) was the first chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy approved for relapsed/refractory (R/R) follicular lymphoma (FL) patients, while mosunetuzumab was the first bispecific monoclonal antibody approved in this population. In the absence of head-to-head evidence, this study sought to conduct a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) to estimate the comparative efficacy and safety of these treatments in 3rd line or higher (3L+) FL. The evidence base consisted of individual patient data (IPD) of all enrolled patients, regardless of infusion status, from the single-arm axi-cel trial, ZUMA-5 (NCT03105336), and aggregate data from the mosunetuzumab FL trial (NCT02500407) from publications identified through a systematic review. Efficacy outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response (DoR), objective response rate (ORR), complete response rate (CRR). Analyses used independent central review for both trials, where possible. Safety outcomes were cytokine release syndrome (CRS), neurological events (NE), and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). Unanchored MAICs were conducted to align ZUMA-5 to the patient characteristics of the mosunetuzumab trial. For each outcome, prognostic factors were identified a priori through quantitative analysis and clinical experts. For time-to-event outcomes, hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated using Cox regression using IPD from ZUMA-5 and pseudo-IPD extracted from Kaplan-Meier plots for mosunetuzumab. Patient characteristics were well-aligned between trials leading to large effective-sample sizes after matching, ranging from 93.4 to 115.5, for ZUMA-5 (n = 127). In comparisons to mosunetuzumab (n = 90), axi-cel was associated with improved PFS (HR: 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.24-0.62) and DoR (HR: 0.45; 95% CI: 0.27-0.76). Similarly, axi-cel led to higher ORR (OR: 3.87; 95% CI: 1.53-9.76) and CRR (OR: 2.80; 95% CI: 1.50-5.26). Although axi-cel was associated with a higher rate of all-grade CRS (OR: 5.54; 95% CI: 2.63-8.94) and NEs (OR: 3.54; 95% CI: 1.28-9.83), differences in grade ≥3 CRS and TRAEs were not statistically significant. Findings from this study show improved efficacy and more durable response for the treatment of 3L+ R/R FL with axi-cel relative to mosunetuzumab, with increased odds of all-grade CRS and NE, but not G3+ CRS and TRAEs.

A Comparison of 3-Year Follow-up of ZUMA-5 (Axicabtagene Ciloleucel) With SCHOLAR-5 in Relapsed/Refractory Follicular Lymphoma.

In the pivotal ZUMA-5 trial, axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel; an autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy) demonstrated high rates of durable response in relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma patients. SCHOLAR-5 is an external control cohort designed to act as a comparator to ZUMA-5. Here, we present an updated comparative analysis of ZUMA-5 and SCHOLAR-5, using the 36-month follow-up data and the intent-to-treat population of ZUMA-5. Using propensity-score methods, 127 patients in ZUMA-5 were compared to 129 patients in SCHOLAR-5. At this extended follow-up, axi-cel continues to demonstrate clinically meaningful benefits in survival compared to historically available treatments in this population.