COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF EARLY VERSUS DELAYED CAR-T STRATEGIES FOR RELAPSED/REFRACTORY LARGE B-CELL LYMPHOMA IN SOUTH KOREA
Author(s)
Gyeyoung Choi, PhD, Seungjin Bae, ScD.
Ewha Womans University, College of Pharmacy, Seoul, Korea, Republic of.
Ewha Womans University, College of Pharmacy, Seoul, Korea, Republic of.
OBJECTIVES: In South Korea, tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) is reimbursed as third-line (3L) therapy for relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma (r/r LBCL), whereas axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) has been proposed for second-line (2L) use. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of early CAR-T therapy (2L axi-cel) compared with delayed CAR-T therapy (2L standard of care [SoC] followed by 3L tisa-cel) from the Korean healthcare payer perspective.
METHODS: A state-transition model was developed to compare early and delayed CAR-T strategies in patients with r/r LBCL over a lifetime horizon with monthly cycles. Clinical efficacy inputs were derived from reconstructed individual patient data from the ZUMA-7 and JULIET trials. Parametric survival models were fitted to estimate long-term outcomes. Direct medical costs were obtained from Korean reimbursement sources and published literature. Health outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Costs and outcomes were discounted at 4.5% annually. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed to assess parameter uncertainty.
RESULTS: Early CAR-T therapy generated 6.45 QALYs at a lifetime cost of KRW 414.2 million, compared with 4.81 QALYs and KRW 219.8 million for delayed CAR-T therapy. The incremental gain was 1.64 QALYs with an additional cost of KRW 194.4 million, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of KRW 118.7 million per QALY gained. Sensitivity analyses identified axi-cel acquisition cost as the most influential parameter, followed by the probability of receiving 3L tisa-cel after 2L SoC failure and the probability of receiving 2L axi-cel. Health state utilities and end-of-life costs had relatively little impact on the ICER.
CONCLUSIONS: Early CAR-T strategy provided greater health benefits but was associated with higher costs. The cost-effectiveness of the early CAR-T strategy was highly sensitive to CAR-T acquisition costs and treatment access patterns, highlighting the importance of pricing and reimbursement policies for earlier CAR-T use in Korea.
METHODS: A state-transition model was developed to compare early and delayed CAR-T strategies in patients with r/r LBCL over a lifetime horizon with monthly cycles. Clinical efficacy inputs were derived from reconstructed individual patient data from the ZUMA-7 and JULIET trials. Parametric survival models were fitted to estimate long-term outcomes. Direct medical costs were obtained from Korean reimbursement sources and published literature. Health outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Costs and outcomes were discounted at 4.5% annually. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed to assess parameter uncertainty.
RESULTS: Early CAR-T therapy generated 6.45 QALYs at a lifetime cost of KRW 414.2 million, compared with 4.81 QALYs and KRW 219.8 million for delayed CAR-T therapy. The incremental gain was 1.64 QALYs with an additional cost of KRW 194.4 million, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of KRW 118.7 million per QALY gained. Sensitivity analyses identified axi-cel acquisition cost as the most influential parameter, followed by the probability of receiving 3L tisa-cel after 2L SoC failure and the probability of receiving 2L axi-cel. Health state utilities and end-of-life costs had relatively little impact on the ICER.
CONCLUSIONS: Early CAR-T strategy provided greater health benefits but was associated with higher costs. The cost-effectiveness of the early CAR-T strategy was highly sensitive to CAR-T acquisition costs and treatment access patterns, highlighting the importance of pricing and reimbursement policies for earlier CAR-T use in Korea.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2026-11, ISPOR Europe 2026, Vienna, Austria
Value in Health, Volume 29, Issue 12S
Code
EE526
Topic
Economic Evaluation, Health Policy & Regulatory, Health Technology Assessment
Disease
No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas, Oncology