Axicabtagene ciloleucel compared to standard of care in Canadian patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis of the ZUMA-7 trial

0Citations
Citations of this article
5Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Aims and background: In the pivotal ZUMA-7 trial, second-line (2L) treatment with axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) had superior clinical outcomes compared to standard of care (SOC; salvage chemoimmunotherapy followed by high-dose therapy and autologous stem cell transplant in responders) in patients with large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) who were refractory or relapsed (r/r) within 12 months of completion of frontline therapy. The aim of this analysis was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of axi-cel compared to SOC for 2L LBCL in Canada. Methods: A 3-health state partitioned-survival model was used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of axi-cel vs. SOC from a Canadian healthcare system perspective. Clinical outcomes were informed by ZUMA-7. The model calculated expected quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), total costs, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Results: Over a lifetime horizon, the model estimated a total of 9.48 and 7.25 QALYs, and total costs of $569,168 and $337,906 for axi-cel and SOC, respectively, resulting in an ICER of $103,810/QALY. When adjusting for the substantial proportion of patients in the SOC arm who received cellular therapy as subsequent treatment, the ICER was reduced to $78,555/QALY. Conclusions: Treatment with axi-cel in 2L is a cost-effective option that addresses an important unmet clinical need for Canadian patients with r/r LBCL.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Kuruvilla, J., Sehn, L. H., Whitney, S., Patel, A. R., Cameron, H., & Reid, G. G. J. (2025). Axicabtagene ciloleucel compared to standard of care in Canadian patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis of the ZUMA-7 trial. Journal of Medical Economics, 28(1), 688–695. https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2025.2498853

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free