← 返回

一次性疗法循证价值评估的演进:以替沙仑赛为例

英文原题:Evolving Evidence-Based Value Assessment of One-Time Therapies: Tisagenlecleucel as a Case Study.

查看英文原题

Evolving Evidence-Based Value Assessment of One-Time Therapies: Tisagenlecleucel as a Case Study.

PubMed 2024/04/29(内容时间) Appl Health Econ Health Policy Q1 · IF 3.1(JCR 2025)

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。

研究概要

tisagenlecleucel 上市时的成本效果预测似乎低估了其最终的经济价值,因为后续的试验和真实世界数据表明了这一点。为了在初始估值的不确定性与提供新型肿瘤治疗可及性的需求之间取得平衡,支付方可以考虑灵活的报销政策,同时随着新数据的出现进行持续评估。

研究思路结论见上方概要

一次性疗法在报销决策中的经济评估因长期结局不确定而具有挑战性。tisagenlecleucel 是首个CAR-T 细胞疗法,ELIANA 试验的 5 年结局数据及其真实世界证据的出现,为重新评估既往成本效果分析(CEA)的预测提供了机会。

对tisagenlecleucel用于儿童/年轻成人复发/难治性急性淋巴细胞白血病(r/r ALL)的既往CEA进行系统性文献综述(SLR),并在更新的CEA模型中评估近期可获得的ELIANA 5年疗效数据以及CAR-T 生产进展的影响。

检索了OVID MEDLINE/Embase和卫生技术评估(HTA)数据库,以查找报告tisagenlecleucel用于r/r ALL的成本效果结果的英文全文经济学评价。公开报告增量成本效果比(ICER)的评价被纳入SLR。研究筛选和数据提取遵循PRISMA指南进行。提取的数据包括国家/货币、研究视角、临床试验证据、模型结构、长期疗效外推方法(即总生存期[OS])、时间范围、贴现率以及结局指标(即生命年[LY]、质量调整生命年[QALY]和ICER)。Wakase等人报告的CEA模型使用来自ELIANA的5年OS数据以及由真实世界实践提供信息的CAR-T 输注率进行了更新。

16条记录对应15项独特研究被纳入SLR(11篇出版物和5份HTA报告);所有研究均从各自国家的卫生保健系统视角开展。大多数研究发现tisagenlecleucel具有成本效益,但所有研究预测的tisagenlecleucel 3年和5年OS率分别低于从5年ELIANA数据中得出的观察3年和5年率。当将来自最新ELIANA数据cut的更新OS预测以及更高的输注率92.5%(根据真实世界输注率)-96.0%(根据制造商成功率)应用于Wakase等人的CEA时,tisagenlecleucel的相关QALYs从11.6增加到14.6-15.0,LYs从13.3增加到17.0-17.5。相应地,在更新后的CEA模型中,tisagenlecleucel的ICERs相对于blinatumomab从2,035,071降至1,787,988-1,789,048,相对于clofarabine联合治疗从2,644,702降至2,257,837-2,275,181。

展开英文摘要原文

Economic evaluation of one-time therapies during reimbursement decision-making is challenging due to uncertain long-term outcomes. The availability of 5-year outcome data from the ELIANA trial and real-world evidence of tisagenlecleucel, the first chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy, presents an opportunity to re-evaluate the predictions of prior cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs).

To conduct a systematic literature review (SLR) of prior CEAs of tisagenlecleucel for pediatric/young adult relapsed or refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia (r/r ALL) and evaluate the impact of recently available 5-year efficacy data from ELIANA and advances in CAR-T manufacturing in an updated CEA model.

OVID MEDLINE/Embase and health technology assessment (HTA) databases were searched for full-text economic evaluations in English reporting cost-effectiveness results for tisagenlecleucel for r/r ALL. Evaluations with publicly reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were included in the SLR. Study screening and data abstraction were conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Data extracted included the country/currency, perspective, clinical trial evidence, model structures, long-term efficacy extrapolation approaches (i.e., overall survival [OS]), time horizon, discount rates, and outcomes (i.e., life years [LY], quality-adjusted LY [QALY], and ICERs). The CEA model reported in Wakase et al. was updated using 5-year OS data from ELIANA and the CAR-T infusion rate informed by real-world practice.

Sixteen records corresponding to 15 unique studies were included in the SLR (11 publications and 5 HTA reports); all were conducted from the health care system perspective of the respective countries. Most studies found tisagenlecleucel to be cost effective, but all studies' projected 3- and 5-year OS rates for tisagenlecleucel were lower than the observed 3- and 5-year rates, respectively, derived from 5-year ELIANA data. When applying updated OS projections from the most recent ELIANA data cut and higher infusion rates of 92.5% (per the real-world infusion rate)-96.0% (per the manufacturer success rate) to the CEA of Wakase et al., the associated QALYs for tisagenlecleucel increased from 11.6 to 14.6-15.0, and LYs increased from 13.3 to 17.0-17.5. Accordingly, the ICERs for tisagenlecleucel decreased from 2,035,071 to 1,787,988- 1,789,048 versus blinatumomab and from 2,644,702 to 2,257,837- 2,275,181 versus clofarabine combination therapy in the updated CEA model.

Projections at launch of the likely cost effectiveness of tisagenlecleucel appear to have underestimated its ultimate economic value given more recent trial and real-world data. To balance uncertainty in initial valuation with the need to provide access to novel oncology therapies, payers can consider flexible reimbursement policies alongside ongoing assessments as new data emerge.

论文信息

作者
Laetsch T、Zhang J、Yang H、Xie Y、Zhang D、Garrison L
第一作者单位
Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA.United States
通讯作者单位
Analysis Group, Inc., Boston, MA, USA. hongbo.yang@analysisgroup.com.United States
文献类型
系统综述
期刊
Applied health economics and health policy2024 Sep
原文标识
PubMed 38683438 · DOI 10.1007/s40258-024-00882-4