CAR-T(CAR-T)细胞疗法在非肿瘤性疾病中的应用
Chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR-T) cell therapy in non-oncological diseases.
CAR-T(CAR-T)细胞在血液系统恶性肿瘤中的应用推动了这种免疫治疗形式的显著进展。
CELL INTELLIGENCE · 肿瘤细胞治疗研究
肿瘤细胞治疗研究
英文原题:Cost-effectiveness of axicabtagene ciloleucel versus lisocabtagene maraleucel for adult patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma after two or more lines of systemic therapy in the US.
Cost-effectiveness of axicabtagene ciloleucel versus lisocabtagene maraleucel for adult patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma after two or more lines of systemic therapy in the US.
分数与星级只用于站内排序 —— 不代表疗效、安全性或个人适用性。
在美国,对于接受过两线或以上全身治疗的复发/难治性 LBCL 成人患者,axi-cel 相比 liso-cel 是一种可能具有成本效益的治疗选择。
从美国支付方角度,评估两种CAR-T(CAR-T)细胞疗法——阿基仑赛(axi-cel)与利基仑赛(liso-cel)——用于既往接受两线及以上全身治疗后复发/难治性(r/r)大B细胞淋巴瘤(LBCL)成人患者的成本效果。
建立包含三个健康状态(疾病进展前、进展后、死亡)的分区生存模型,估算患者终生结局。采用混合治愈模型外推生存,以考虑长期缓解。生存参数基于匹配调整间接比较(MAIC):对接受axi-cel的ZUMA-1人群进行重新加权,使其与评估liso-cel的TRANSCEND-NHL-001患者特征相匹配。成本依据已发表文献和数据库,涵盖单采、药物获取及预处理化疗和CAR-T 治疗的给药、监测、移植、住院、不良事件、常规照护和临终照护。效用值来自ZUMA-1和相关文献。研究开展了确定性及概率敏感性分析。
基础分析中,与liso-cel相比,axi-cel带来更多质量调整生命年(QALY)(7.76比5.94),总成本也更高(611,440美元比597,174美元),每增加一个QALY的成本为7,843美元。增量成本(14,266美元)主要由常规照护成本增加(18,596美元,因生存时间更长)和住院成本增加(10,993美元)驱动,部分被CAR-T 治疗获取成本(减少11,300美元)和临终照护成本(减少4,025美元)的降低抵消。敏感性分析一致支持基础分析结果的稳健性。 局限性:本研究依赖MAIC,无法考虑试验设计差异和未观察到的混杂因素。对于近期获批的CAR-T 疗法,仍需真实世界研究验证本研究结果。由于数据缺乏,研究依据临床医生意见,假设两种疗法的移植使用情况及B细胞再生障碍治疗情况相同。
在美国,对于既往接受两线及以上全身治疗的r/r LBCL成人患者,与liso-cel相比,axi-cel可能是一种具有成本效果的治疗选择。
We developed a 3-state (i.e., pre-progression, post-progression, death) partitioned survival model to estimate patients' lifetime outcomes. Mixture cure models were used for survival extrapolation to account for long-term remission. Survival inputs were based on a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) that reweighted the ZUMA-1 population (receiving axi-cel) to match patient characteristics in TRANSCEND-NHL-001 (assessing liso-cel). Costs included apheresis, drug acquisition, and administration for conditioning chemotherapy and CAR T therapies, monitoring, transplant, hospitalization, adverse events, routine care, and terminal care, per published literature and databases. Utilities were derived from ZUMA-1 and literature. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.
In the base case, axi-cel was associated with more QALYs (7.76 vs. 5.94) and greater costs overall ($611,440 vs. $597,174) than liso-cel, at $7,843/QALY gained. The incremental costs (+$14,266) were largely driven by higher routine care costs (+$18,596) due to longer survival and hospitalization (+$10,993) but partially offset by reduced costs of CAR T acquisition ( $11,300) and terminal care ( $4,025). Sensitivity analyses consistently suggested robustness of base-case results. LIMITATIONS: This study relied on an MAIC in which trial design differences and unobserved confounders could not be accounted for. Future real-world studies for recently approved CAR T are warranted to validate our results. Due to a lack of data, we assumed equivalent use of transplants and treatment for B-cell aplasia between the two therapies based on clinicians' opinions.
In the US, axi-cel is a potentially cost-effective treatment option compared with liso-cel for adult patients with r/r LBCL after two or more systemic therapy lines.
MEMBER ACCOUNT
登录成功会直接打开下一页。