Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36947328›Full record

ArticleAdvances in therapy2023

Cost-Effectiveness of Lisocabtagene Maraleucel Versus Axicabtagene Ciloleucel and Tisagenlecleucel in the Third-Line or Later Treatment Setting for Relapsed or Refractory Large B-cell Lymphoma in the United States.

Christopher Parker, Fei Fei Liu, Kristen A Deger, Conrado Franco-Villalobos, Irina Proskorovsky, Scott J Keating, Sonja Sorensen

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in therapy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Plasmablastic Lymphoma. A State-of-the-Art Review: Part 2-Focus on Therapy.Mediterranean journal of hematology and infectious diseases · 2024
    Review
  10. CAR-T Cell Therapy in Large B Cell Lymphoma.Mediterranean journal of hematology and infectious diseases · 2023
    Review
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Christopher ParkerBristol Myers Squibb, Uxbridge, UK.
Fei Fei LiuBristol Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ, USA.
Kristen A DegerEvidence Synthesis, Modeling & Communication, Evidera Inc., 7101 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1400, Bethesda, MD, 20814, USA.
Conrado Franco-VillalobosEvidence Synthesis, Modeling & Communication, Evidera Inc., Montreal, QC, Canada.
Irina ProskorovskyEvidence Synthesis, Modeling & Communication, Evidera Inc., Montreal, QC, Canada.
Scott J KeatingBristol Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ, USA.
Sonja SorensenEvidence Synthesis, Modeling & Communication, Evidera Inc., 7101 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1400, Bethesda, MD, 20814, USA. Sonja.sorensen@evidera.com.
Bristol-Myers Squibb (United States) · USBristol-Myers Squibb (United Kingdom) · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) versus other available chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies, including axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) and tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel), in patients who had received at least two prior therapies from a United States (US) commercial third-party payer perspective.

methodsTo capture this heterogeneity in survival outcomes, we used mixture cure models to extrapolate progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Patient-level data from TRANSCEND NHL 001 for liso-cel and reconstructed patient-level data from ZUMA-1 for axi-cel, JULIET for tisa-cel, and SCHOLAR-1 for salvage chemotherapy, derived using the Guyot method, were used for OS and PFS. The model included adverse events associated with liso-cel, axi-cel, and tisa-cel.

resultsLiso-cel was less costly (incremental cost of - $74,980) and marginally more effective (0.002 incremental quality-adjusted life-years [QALY]) than axi-cel and had an incremental cost of $67,925 and 2.02 incremental QALYs over tisa-cel in the base case. Results remained consistent in sensitivity analyses, with the liso-cel OS cure fraction being the main driver of cost-effectiveness compared with both axi-cel and tisa-cel.

conclusionThis analysis estimated that liso-cel is cost-effective compared with tisa-cel and axi-cel from a commercial US payer perspective.

Indexed as

Lymphoma, Large B-Cell, DiffuseBiological ProductsCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansImmunotherapy, AdoptiveReceptors, Antigen, T-Cellaxicabtagene ciloleucelBiological ProductsReceptors, Antigen, T-CelltisagenlecleucelAxicabtagene ciloleucelChimeric antigen receptorCost-effectivenessLarge B-cell lymphomaLisocabtagene maraleucelNon-Hodgkin lymphomaQuality-adjusted life-yearTisagenlecleucel

Identifiers

PMID36947328
PMCPMC10129927
OpenAlexW4353015140

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.