ArticleAdvances in therapy2026
Cost-Effectiveness of Lisocabtagene Maraleucel Versus Axicabtagene Ciloleucel as Second-Line Treatment for Large B Cell Lymphoma in the United States.
Article in Advances in therapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
A Phase 3, Randomized, Open-Label Study Evaluating the Efficacy of Axicabtagene Ciloleucel Versus Standard of Care Therapy in Subjects With Relapsed/Refractory Diffuse Large B Cell Lymphoma (ZUMA-7)
A Global Randomized Multicenter Phase 3 Trial of JCAR017 Compared to Standard of Care in Adult Subjects With High-risk, Second-line, Transplant-eligible Relapsed or Refractory Aggressive B-cell Non-Hodgkin Lymphomas (TRANSFORM).
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) versus axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) as a second-line treatment for patients with primary refractory or early relapsed transplant-eligible large B cell lymphoma (LBCL) from a US commercial third-party payer perspective.
methodsA partitioned survival model captured the event-free, post-event, and death states to estimate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) from cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over a lifetime horizon. Mixture cure modeling was employed to extrapolate event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) beyond the trial follow-up period using data from the TRANSFORM and ZUMA-7 studies. The comparative treatment effect of liso-cel versus axi-cel was estimated using the Bucher method for indirect treatment comparisons, leveraging standard of care as a common comparator across both trials. Health state utility estimates and disutilities due to adverse events (AE) were derived from TRANSFORM EQ-5D-5L data and supplemented with published sources. The model incorporated costs associated with chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapy pre-treatment, treatment acquisition and administration (inpatient and outpatient), subsequent treatment, AE management, hospitalization after infusion, monitoring, and end-of-life care based on standard US sources.
resultsLiso-cel was projected to result in additional QALYs of 0.31, at a lower cost than axi-cel (incremental cost of - $9398). The cost of liso-cel was offset by lower costs associated with AE management (- $11,109), chimeric antigen receptor T cell administration (- $15,074), and subsequent treatment (- $2864). The main driver of results was the OS cure probability.
conclusionLiso-cel as a second-line LBCL treatment was estimated to be cost-effective compared with axi-cel, as informed by pivotal trials, from a US commercial third-party payer perspective. Patients treated with liso-cel were estimated to gain slightly more QALYs at a lower cost.
trial registrationNCT03575351 (TRANSFORM), NCT03391466 (ZUMA-7).
Indexed as
Identifiers
42909844What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.