Liso-Cel Deemed Cost-Effective as Second-Line Treatment for DLBCL

Lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) is cost-effective as second-line therapy for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), according to research published in Blood Advances.¹

Researchers created a cost-effectiveness model to compare liso-cel to standard second-line therapy for DLBCL using data from the TRANSFORM and TRANSCEND trials.

The researchers calculated that the average life expectancy was 5.34 years for patients who received liso-cel and 2.47 years for patients who received standard care. The average quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained were 3.64 and 1.62, respectively.

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for liso-cel was $99,669 per QALY from a health care sector perspective and $68,212 per QALY from a societal perspective.

“These values position liso-cel as a cost-effective option at the widely accepted threshold of $100,000 per QALY from both perspectives,” the researchers wrote.

They noted that the total discounted lifetime health care costs were $668,624 for liso-cel and $467,624 for standard care. These costs encompassed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy procedures, chemotherapy, transplant, hospital admissions, monitoring, management of disease progression, end-of-life care, and adverse event management.

The societal costs of treatment included travel expenses and lost productivity due to death, which encompassed lost labor market earnings, unpaid productivity loss, and the cost of uncompensated household activities.

Lost earnings due to mortality totaled $110,608 for liso-cel and $156,362 for standard care. Unpaid productivity loss totaled $34,347 for liso-cel and $39,426 for standard care. Uncompensated household production costs were $58,437 and $67,078, respectively. And travel-associated costs were $10,458 and $14,425, respectively.

Taken together, the results of this analysis suggest that CAR T-cell therapy “is worth considering” as a second-line treatment for relapsed/refractory DLBCL, study author Mohamed Abou-el-Enein, MD, PhD, of the Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, said in a statement.²

“When deciding on what therapies to use in clinical practice, I think it is important that we do not shy away from these therapies solely because of their list price,” he added. “We must keep our patients front and center in these decisions and continue to have conversations about how we can lower the price of CAR-T cells and increase patient access to this life-saving treatment.”

Disclosures: Some study authors declared affiliations with biotech, pharmaceutical, and/or device companies. Please see the original reference for a full list of disclosures.

This article originally appeared on Cancer Therapy Advisor