Cost‐effectiveness analysis of transplant‐ineligible relapsed or refractory diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma treatment options—Experience of the efficiency frontier approach

Abstract

AbstractObjectivesThe treatment of relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma (DLBCL) changed remarkably since the European Medicines Agency‐approved chimeric antigen receptor T‐cell (CAR‐T) therapies (axicabtagene ciloleucel [axi‐cel], lisocabtagene maraleucel [liso‐cel], tisagenlecleucel [tisa‐cel]) for the third‐line onwards (3+L), and targeted therapies (polatuzumab vedotin–bendamustine–rituximab [pola‐BR], tafasitamab–lenalidomide [Tafa‐L]) for the second‐line (2L) onwards. As associated rising treatment costs represent an economic burden, the cost‐effectiveness of transplant‐ineligible R/R DLBCL interventions was assessed from a German healthcare payer's perspective, using the efficiency frontier (EF) approach.MethodsA systematic literature review was performed to determine the clinical benefit concerning median overall survival (OS) of bendamustine–rituximab (BR), rituximab–gemcitabine–oxaliplatin (R‐GemOx), axi‐cel, liso‐cel, tisa‐cel, pola‐BR, and Tafa‐L. First‐year treatment costs (drug and medical services costs) were calculated. Results were merged on two‐dimensional graphs illustrating 2L and 3+L EFs.ResultsSecond‐line EF is formed by BR (median OS 11.49 months, €23 958) and Tafa‐L (45.7, €104 541), 3+L EF is formed by R‐GemOx (12.0, €29 080), Tafa‐L (15.5, €104 541), and axi‐cel (18.69, €308 516). These interventions build the respective cost‐effectiveness thresholds for novel interventions.ConclusionsUsing the EF approach, the currently most cost‐effective interventions (based on cost‐effectiveness ratios) in the indication of R/R DLBCL were identified to guide international reimbursement decisions.