Tisagenlecleucel 1.2million-600million cells dispersion for infusion bags

BackgroundChimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy is an area of rapid development, showing the promise of curing blood cancers. While substantial health gains may justify high costs, it is currently unclear the extent to which the overall cost effectiveness of these therapies is driven by i) context-specific factors, such willingness-to-pay thresholds and study perspective, or ii) important subgroups such as line of treatment and therapy product.ObjectiveThis paper aims to critically review published evidence on the cost effectiveness of CAR T-cell therapies and assess the key factors that drive their cost effectiveness.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review using PubMed, Scopus and Ovid (Embase) databases to identify full economic evaluations of CAR T-cell therapies published up to January 2024. One reviewer screened and extracted data from the studies and the second reviewer assessed a sample of the full-text studies against the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Studies were critically appraised using the CHEERS checklist. Cost data are presented in 2022 US dollars.ResultsThe review identified 45 full cost-effectiveness studies of CAR T-cell therapies. These studies considered a total of 92 treatment comparisons, which included tisagenlecleucel (n = 37), axicabtagene ciloleucel (n = 28), brexucabtagene autoleucel (n = 7), lisocabtagene maraleucel (n = 8), idecabtagene vicleucel (n = 6), ciltacabtagene autoleucel (n = 4) and relmacabtagene autoleucel (n = 2). Incremental cost ranged from - US$74,980 to US$714,178 and incremental quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gains ranged from - 0.02 to 10.77. The resulting cost-per-QALY-gained ratios ranged from - US$37,490,000 to US$7,972,845, and the range of willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds between US$36,184 to US$317,825. The price of CAR T-cell therapy represented 75% (mean US$391,060) of the total cost of CAR T-cell therapy but was not the sole factor influencing cost effectiveness. Hospitalisation made up 6% of the total cost (mean US$34,152), while adverse events accounted for 9% (mean US$47,350). Regression analysis indicated cost effectiveness did not change according to important clinical or contextual factors.ConclusionsThe findings demonstrate that the cost effectiveness of CAR T-cell therapies is determined by a combination of factors: the relative difference between the cost of the CAR T-cell therapy and comparator, the magnitude of the QALY gains and the WTP thresholds. Their cost- effectiveness does not differ according to therapy product, line of treatment, or country.

Abstract licence: CC BY-NC

Background and aim: Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs) are innovative drugs based on genes, tissues, or cells that target rare and severe diseases. ATMPs have shown promising clinical outcomes but are associated with high costs, raising questions about cost-effectiveness. Hence, this systematic review aims to analyze the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility profiles of the European Medicines Agency-authorized ATMPs for treating rare diseases. Methods: A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Studies were identified by searching PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and ProQuest scientific databases. Economic evaluations reporting incremental cost-effectiveness/utility ratios (ICERs/ICURs) for ATMPs were included. Costs were standardized to 2023 Euros, and a cost-effectiveness plane was constructed to evaluate the results against willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of EUR 50,000, EUR 100,000, and EUR 150,000 per QALY, as part of a sensitivity analysis. Results: A total of 61 studies met the inclusion criteria. ATMPs for rare blood diseases, such as tisagenlecleucel and axicabtagene ciloleucel, were found to be cost-effective in a majority of studies, with incremental QALYs ranging from 1.5 to 10 per patient over lifetime horizon. Tisagenlecleucel demonstrated a positive cost-effectiveness profile in the treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (58%), while axicabtagene ciloleucel showed a positive profile in the treatment of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (85%). Onasemnogene abeparvovec for spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) showed uncertain cost-effectiveness results, and voretigene neparvovec for retinal diseases was not cost-effective in 40% of studies, with incremental QALYs around 1.3 and high costs exceeding the WTP threshold set. Conclusions: ATMPs in treating rare diseases show promising economic potential, but cost-effectiveness varies across indications. Policymakers must balance innovation with system sustainability, using refined models and the long-term impact on patient outcomes.

Abstract licence: CC BY