IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v21y2023i5d10.1007_s40258-023-00817-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Value for Money of CAR-T Cell Therapy for Patients with Diffuse Large B-cell Lymphoma in China: Evidence from a Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Weijia Wu

    (Zhejiang University School of Medicine
    Queensland of University)

  • Yuping Zhou

    (Zhejiang University
    Zhejiang Province Engineering Laboratory for Stem Cell and Immunity Therapy
    Zhejiang University)

  • Yannan Wang

    (Zhejiang Provincial People’s Hospital, Affiliated People’s Hospital, Hangzhou Medical College)

  • Syed Afroz Keramat

    (Queensland of University)

  • Namal N. Balasooriya

    (Queensland of University)

  • Zixuan Zhao

    (Zhejiang University School of Medicine)

  • Yi Yang

    (Zhejiang University School of Medicine)

  • Tracy Comans

    (Queensland of University)

  • Hengjin Dong

    (Zhejiang University School of Medicine)

Abstract

Objective This research assesses the cost effectiveness of Axicabtagene ciloleucel (Axi-cel), Tisagenlecleucel (Tis-cel), Relmacabtagene autoleucel (Rel-cel) and Lisocabtagene maraleucel (Lis-cel) against standard of care (SOC) for patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) in the first-line setting (1L), second-line setting (2L) and third-line or later setting (3L+). Methods Markov modelling based on a flexible survival model was adopted to evaluate four chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapies compared with SOC for patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). The clinical inputs and utility values of the model were derived from the most recent clinical trials and the health care costs from a Chinese provincial clinical center. Costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were used to derive incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) from the Chinese health care system perspective. Results The ICER of Axi-cel (1L) versus SOC was approximately Chinese Yuan (CNY) 2,125,311 per QALY. The ICER for Axi-cel (2L), Tis-cel (2L) and Liso-cel (2L)) versus SOC in transplant-eligible patients were approximately CNY363,977, CNY32,066,781 and CNY347,746 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), respectively. The ICER for Liso-cel (2L) versus SOC in transplant-ineligible patients was approximately CNY1,233,972 per QALY. The ICERs for Axi-cel (3L+), Tis-cel (3L+), Rel-cel (3L+) and Liso-cel (3L+) versus SOC were approximately CNY346,009, CNY654,344, CNY280,964 and CNY436,858 per QALY, respectively. In the scenario analysis using mixture cure models, the long-term survival benefit for CAR-T and SOC groups was found higher, and only Rel-cel (3L+) was found to be cost effective. Conclusion Our results demonstrated that CAR-T treatments are not cost effective in any-line settings for DLBCL patients at the WHO-recommended willingness-to-pay threshold (CNY257,241 per QALY) in the base-case analysis. Price reduction of CAR-T therapies is the main approach for lowering ICERs and ensuring that the drug costs are proportional to patient health benefits.

Suggested Citation

  • Weijia Wu & Yuping Zhou & Yannan Wang & Syed Afroz Keramat & Namal N. Balasooriya & Zixuan Zhao & Yi Yang & Tracy Comans & Hengjin Dong, 2023. "Value for Money of CAR-T Cell Therapy for Patients with Diffuse Large B-cell Lymphoma in China: Evidence from a Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 21(5), pages 773-783, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:21:y:2023:i:5:d:10.1007_s40258-023-00817-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-023-00817-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-023-00817-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40258-023-00817-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:21:y:2023:i:5:d:10.1007_s40258-023-00817-5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.