Aim: This study examines how chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy's incremental effectiveness and cost-effectiveness profile fits into the recent history of anticancer treatments. Materials & methods: We conducted graphical and multivariable analyses using data from the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry of the Tufts Medical Center and the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review's analysis of CAR-T therapies. We collected additional information including the US FDA approval years for pharmacologic innovations. Results: CAR-T provided 5.03 (95% CI: 3.88-6.18) more incremental quality-adjusted life-years than the average pharmaceutical intervention and 4.61 (95% CI: 1.67-7.56) more than the average nonpharmaceutical intervention, while retaining similar cost-effectiveness. There was evidence of worsening cost-effectiveness by approval year for pharmaceutical interventions. Limitations: Analysis is limited to anticancer treatments studied in cost-utility analyses, estimated to cover approximately 60% of FDA-approved antineoplastic agents. Conclusion: CAR-T therapy breaks a pattern of stagnant efficacy growth in pharmaceutical innovation and demonstrates significantly greater incremental effectiveness and similar cost-effectiveness to prior innovations.
Aim: This study examines how chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy's incremental effectiveness and cost-effectiveness profile fits into the recent history of anticancer treatments. Materials & methods: We conducted graphical and multivariable analyses using data from the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry of the Tufts Medical Center and the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review's analysis of CAR-T therapies. We collected additional information including the US FDA approval years for pharmacologic innovations. Results:CAR-T provided 5.03 (95% CI: 3.88-6.18) more incremental quality-adjusted life-years than the average pharmaceutical intervention and 4.61 (95% CI: 1.67-7.56) more than the average nonpharmaceutical intervention, while retaining similar cost-effectiveness. There was evidence of worsening cost-effectiveness by approval year for pharmaceutical interventions. Limitations: Analysis is limited to anticancer treatments studied in cost-utility analyses, estimated to cover approximately 60% of FDA-approved antineoplastic agents. Conclusion:CAR-T therapy breaks a pattern of stagnant efficacy growth in pharmaceutical innovation and demonstrates significantly greater incremental effectiveness and similar cost-effectiveness to prior innovations.
Entities:
Keywords:
CAR-T therapy; cost–effectiveness analysis; cost–utility analysis; economics of medical technology; history of medical innovation; innovation; oncology; value of healthcare