Reith R Sarkar1,2, Nicholas J Gloude1,3, Deborah Schiff1,3, James D Murphy1,2. 1. University of California San Diego School of Medicine, UCSD School of Medicine, La Jolla, CA. 2. Department of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA. 3. Department of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology, Rady Children's Hospital, San Diego, CA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy is a promising new class of cancer therapy but has a high up-front cost. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of CAR-T therapy among pediatric patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL). METHODS: We built a microsimulation model for pediatric patients with relapsed/refractory B-ALL receiving either CAR-T therapy or standard of care. Outcomes included costs, quality of life (health utility), complications, and survival. We measured cost-effectiveness with the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), with ICERs under $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) considered cost effective. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to test model uncertainty. RESULTS: Compared to standard of care, CAR-T therapy increased overall cost by $528 200 and improved effectiveness by 8.18 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of $64 600/QALY. The model was sensitive to assumptions about long-term CAR-T survival, the complete remission rate of CAR-T patients, and the health utility of long-term survivors. The base model assumed a 76.0% one-year survival with CAR-T, although if this decreased to 57.8%, then CAR-T was no longer cost effective. If the complete remission rate of CAR-T recipients decreased from 81% to 56.2%, or if the health utility of disease-free survivors decreased from 0.94 to 0.66, then CAR-T was no longer cost effective. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis found that CAR-T was cost effective in 94.8% of iterations at a willingness to pay of $100 000/QALY. CONCLUSION: CAR-T therapy may represent a cost-effective option for pediatric relapsed/refractory B-ALL, although longer follow-up of CAR-T survivors is required to confirm validity of these findings.
BACKGROUND:Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy is a promising new class of cancer therapy but has a high up-front cost. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of CAR-T therapy among pediatric patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL). METHODS: We built a microsimulation model for pediatric patients with relapsed/refractory B-ALL receiving either CAR-T therapy or standard of care. Outcomes included costs, quality of life (health utility), complications, and survival. We measured cost-effectiveness with the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), with ICERs under $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) considered cost effective. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to test model uncertainty. RESULTS: Compared to standard of care, CAR-T therapy increased overall cost by $528 200 and improved effectiveness by 8.18 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of $64 600/QALY. The model was sensitive to assumptions about long-term CAR-T survival, the complete remission rate of CAR-Tpatients, and the health utility of long-term survivors. The base model assumed a 76.0% one-year survival with CAR-T, although if this decreased to 57.8%, then CAR-T was no longer cost effective. If the complete remission rate of CAR-T recipients decreased from 81% to 56.2%, or if the health utility of disease-free survivors decreased from 0.94 to 0.66, then CAR-T was no longer cost effective. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis found that CAR-T was cost effective in 94.8% of iterations at a willingness to pay of $100 000/QALY. CONCLUSION:CAR-T therapy may represent a cost-effective option for pediatric relapsed/refractory B-ALL, although longer follow-up of CAR-T survivors is required to confirm validity of these findings.
Authors: Kathryn R Tringale; Kate T Carroll; Kaveh Zakeri; Assuntina G Sacco; Linda Barnachea; James D Murphy Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2018-05-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Robert Hettle; Mark Corbett; Sebastian Hinde; Robert Hodgson; Julie Jones-Diette; Nerys Woolacott; Stephen Palmer Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Joan L Warren; K Robin Yabroff; Angela Meekins; Marie Topor; Elizabeth B Lamont; Martin L Brown Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2008-06-10 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Martin Schrappe; Stephen P Hunger; Ching-Hon Pui; Vaskar Saha; Paul S Gaynon; André Baruchel; Valentino Conter; Jacques Otten; Akira Ohara; Anne Birgitta Versluys; Gabriele Escherich; Mats Heyman; Lewis B Silverman; Keizo Horibe; Georg Mann; Bruce M Camitta; Jochen Harbott; Hansjörg Riehm; Sue Richards; Meenakshi Devidas; Martin Zimmermann Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-04-12 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Nazia Rashid; Han A Koh; Hilda C Baca; Kathy J Lin; Susan E Malecha; Anthony Masaquel Journal: Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press) Date: 2016-10-04
Authors: Alexander Ring; Björn Grob; Erik Aerts; Katharina Ritter; Jörk Volbracht; Bettina Schär; Michael Greiling; Antonia M S Müller Journal: Ann Hematol Date: 2022-06-27 Impact factor: 4.030
Authors: Eytan Herzig; Kaman Chan Kim; Thomas A Packard; Noam Vardi; Roland Schwarzer; Andrea Gramatica; Steven G Deeks; Steven R Williams; Kyle Landgraf; Nigel Killeen; David W Martin; Leor S Weinberger; Warner C Greene Journal: Cell Date: 2019-10-24 Impact factor: 41.582