Christopher Hillis1, Colin Vicente2, Graeme Ball3. 1. McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. hillisc@mcmaster.ca. 2. PIVINA Consulting Inc., Mississauga, ON, Canada. 3. Gilead Sciences Canada Inc., Mississauga, ON, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) received marketing authorisation in Canada for the treatment of relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma after two or more lines of systemic therapy, and the clinical and economic value of axi-cel to patients and the healthcare system should be examined. The objective of this analysis is to determine, from societal and public healthcare payer perspectives, the cost effectiveness of axi-cel versus best supportive care for patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma in Canada. METHODS: A pharmacoeconomic model was developed and populated with clinical data derived from the ZUMA-1 and SCHOLAR-1 studies using a propensity score-matched comparison. A partitioned survival mixture-cure modelling approach was taken to characterise the potential curative effect of axi-cel therapy in large B-cell lymphoma. Healthcare resource utilisation and adverse event data were based on results from ZUMA-1, and utility values were derived from ZUMA-1 data supplemented with published literature. Costs (in 2021 Canadian dollars) were taken from publicly available Canadian cost databases and published literature. Benefits and costs were discounted at 1.5% per year, and sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the results. RESULTS: In the base case, axi-cel generated an incremental 6.2 life-years compared to best supportive care, corresponding to 4.6 additional quality-adjusted life-years, and was associated with $606,010 in additional costs. The incremental cost-utility ratio was $132,747 per quality-adjusted life-year gained compared with best supportive care from a societal perspective ($106,392 per quality-adjusted life-year gained from a public healthcare payer perspective). Key drivers of the analysis included progression-free survival and overall survival values for axi-cel. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this analysis suggest that axi-cel may be considered a cost-effective allocation of resources compared with best supportive care for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma in Canada.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) received marketing authorisation in Canada for the treatment of relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma after two or more lines of systemic therapy, and the clinical and economic value of axi-cel to patients and the healthcare system should be examined. The objective of this analysis is to determine, from societal and public healthcare payer perspectives, the cost effectiveness of axi-cel versus best supportive care for patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma in Canada. METHODS: A pharmacoeconomic model was developed and populated with clinical data derived from the ZUMA-1 and SCHOLAR-1 studies using a propensity score-matched comparison. A partitioned survival mixture-cure modelling approach was taken to characterise the potential curative effect of axi-cel therapy in large B-cell lymphoma. Healthcare resource utilisation and adverse event data were based on results from ZUMA-1, and utility values were derived from ZUMA-1 data supplemented with published literature. Costs (in 2021 Canadian dollars) were taken from publicly available Canadian cost databases and published literature. Benefits and costs were discounted at 1.5% per year, and sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the results. RESULTS: In the base case, axi-cel generated an incremental 6.2 life-years compared to best supportive care, corresponding to 4.6 additional quality-adjusted life-years, and was associated with $606,010 in additional costs. The incremental cost-utility ratio was $132,747 per quality-adjusted life-year gained compared with best supportive care from a societal perspective ($106,392 per quality-adjusted life-year gained from a public healthcare payer perspective). Key drivers of the analysis included progression-free survival and overall survival values for axi-cel. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this analysis suggest that axi-cel may be considered a cost-effective allocation of resources compared with best supportive care for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma in Canada.
Authors: Thomas M Habermann; Edie A Weller; Vicki A Morrison; Randy D Gascoyne; Peter A Cassileth; Jeffrey B Cohn; Shaker R Dakhil; Bruce Woda; Richard I Fisher; Bruce A Peterson; Sandra J Horning Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-06-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Bertrand Coiffier; Eric Lepage; Josette Briere; Raoul Herbrecht; Hervé Tilly; Reda Bouabdallah; Pierre Morel; Eric Van Den Neste; Gilles Salles; Philippe Gaulard; Felix Reyes; Pierre Lederlin; Christian Gisselbrecht Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-01-24 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Feras M Ghazawi; Michelle Le; Nebras Alghazawi; Elham Rahme; Linda Moreau; Elena Netchiporouk; Andrei Zubarev; Osama Roshdy; Steven J Glassman; Denis Sasseville; Ivan V Litvinov Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 2018-11-02 Impact factor: 11.527
Authors: Laurie H Sehn; Jane Donaldson; Mukesh Chhanabhai; Catherine Fitzgerald; Karamjit Gill; Richard Klasa; Nicol MacPherson; Susan O'Reilly; John J Spinelli; Judy Sutherland; Kenneth S Wilson; Randy D Gascoyne; Joseph M Connors Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-06-13 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: P Feugier; A Van Hoof; C Sebban; P Solal-Celigny; R Bouabdallah; C Fermé; B Christian; E Lepage; H Tilly; F Morschhauser; P Gaulard; G Salles; A Bosly; C Gisselbrecht; F Reyes; B Coiffier Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-05-02 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: T P Miller; S Dahlberg; J R Cassady; D J Adelstein; C M Spier; T M Grogan; M LeBlanc; S Carlin; E Chase; R I Fisher Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1998-07-02 Impact factor: 91.245