» Articles » PMID: 36684853

Cost-utility and Value of Information Analysis of Tisagenlecleucel for Relapsed/refractory Diffuse Large B-cell Lymphoma in the Irish Healthcare Setting

Overview
Publisher MDPI
Specialty Public Health
Date 2023 Jan 23
PMID 36684853
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: The evidence base of tisagenlecleucel is uncertain.

Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tisagenlecleucel. To conduct expected value of perfect information (EVPI) and partial EVPI (EVPPI) analyses.

Study Design: A three-state partitioned survival model. A short-term decision tree partitioned patients in the tisagenlecleucel arm according to infusion status. Survival was extrapolated to 5 years; general population mortality with a standardised mortality ratio was then applied. EVPI and EVPPI were scaled up to population according to the incidence of the decision.

Setting: Irish healthcare payer.

Participants: Patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (R/R DLBCL).

Interventions: Tisagenlecleucel versus Salvage Chemotherapy (with or without haematopoietic stem cell transplant).

Main Outcome Measure: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Population EVPI and EVPPI.

Results: At list prices, the ICER was €119,509 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) (incremental costs €218,092; incremental QALYs 1.82). Probability of cost-effectiveness, at a €45,000 per QALY threshold, was 0%. Population EVPI was €0.00. Population EVPI, at the price of tisagenlecleucel that reduced the ICER to €45,000 per QALY, was €3,989,438. Here, survival analysis had the highest population EVPPI (€1,128,053).

Conclusion: Tisagenlecleucel is not cost-effective, versus salvage chemotherapy (with or without haematopoietic stem cell transplant), for R/R DLBCL in Ireland. At list prices, further research to decrease decision uncertainty may not be of value.

Citing Articles

Economic evaluation of anti-CD19 CAR T-cell pathway for large B-cell lymphomas in the real-life setting: the experience of an Italian hub center in the first three years of activity.

Di Staso R, Casadei B, Gentilini M, Guadagnuolo S, Pellegrini C, Broccoli A Ann Hematol. 2024; 103(7):2499-2509.

PMID: 38695872 PMC: 11224113. DOI: 10.1007/s00277-024-05766-0.

References
1.
Rutherford S, Leonard J . Lymphoma "benchmark" or "bench-smudge"?. Blood. 2017; 130(16):1778-1779. DOI: 10.1182/blood-2017-08-800730. View

2.
Lin V, Blaylock B, Epstein J, Purdum A . Systematic literature review of health-related quality of life among aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma survivors. Curr Med Res Opin. 2018; 34(8):1529-1535. DOI: 10.1080/03007995.2018.1474091. View

3.
Crump M, Kuruvilla J, Couban S, MacDonald D, Kukreti V, Kouroukis C . Randomized comparison of gemcitabine, dexamethasone, and cisplatin versus dexamethasone, cytarabine, and cisplatin chemotherapy before autologous stem-cell transplantation for relapsed and refractory aggressive lymphomas: NCIC-CTG LY.12. J Clin Oncol. 2014; 32(31):3490-6. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2013.53.9593. View

4.
Liu R, Oluwole O, Diakite I, Botteman M, Snider J, Locke F . Cost effectiveness of axicabtagene ciloleucel versus tisagenlecleucel for adult patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma after two or more lines of systemic therapy in the United States. J Med Econ. 2021; 24(1):458-468. DOI: 10.1080/13696998.2021.1901721. View

5.
Ara R, Brazier J . Populating an economic model with health state utility values: moving toward better practice. Value Health. 2010; 13(5):509-18. DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010.00700.x. View