Table 2.
Treatment-related model inputs
| Base | Low | High | References | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Axi-cel | ||||
| CAR T cell acquisition cost per patient ($) | $399,000 | $359,100 | $438,900 | [12] |
| % receiving bridging therapy | 0.0% | 0.0% | 20.0% | [5] |
| % receiving lymphodepleting chemotherapy | ||||
| Bendamustine | 0.0% | 0.0% | 20.0% | [5] |
| Cyclophosphamide-fludarabine | 100.0% | 80.0% | 100.0% | [5] |
| % receiving SCT post CAR T cell infusion | 7.9% | 6.3% | 9.5% | [10] |
| Grade ≥ 3 CRS and NE incidence (%) | ||||
| MAIC-matched axi-cel versus liso-cela | ||||
| CRS but not NE | 3.0% | 2.4% | 3.6% | [34] |
| NE but not CRS | 22.8% | 18.2% | 27.4% | [34] |
| Both CRS and NE | 6.0% | 4.8% | 7.2% | [34] |
| MAIC-matched axi-cel versus tisa-celb | ||||
| CRS but not NE | 2.9% | 2.3% | 3.5% | [35] |
| NE but not CRS | 20.7% | 16.5% | 24.8% | [35] |
| Both CRS and NE | 6.4% | 5.1% | 7.7% | [35] |
| % receiving IVIG | 30.6% | 24.4% | 36.7% | [14] |
| Liso-cel | ||||
| CAR T cell acquisition cost/patient ($) | $410,300 | $369,270 | $451,330 | [12] |
| % receiving bridging therapy | 59.1% | 47.3% | 70.9% | [6] |
| % receiving lymphodepleting chemotherapy | ||||
| Bendamustine | 0.0% | 0.0% | 20.0% | [6] |
| Cyclophosphamide-fludarabine | 100.0% | 80.0% | 100.0% | [6] |
| % receiving SCT post CAR T cell infusion | 7.6% | 6.1% | 9.1% | [36] |
| Grade ≥ 3 AE incidence (%) | ||||
| CRS but not NE | 1.9% | 0.7% | 1.1% | [6, 15] |
| NE but not CRS | 8.8% | 7.0% | 10.5% | [6, 15] |
| Both CRS and NE | 1.8% | 1.4% | 2.1% | [6, 15] |
| % receiving IVIG | 21.0% | 16.8% | 25.2% | [37] |
| Tisa-cel | ||||
| CAR T cell acquisition cost/patient ($) | $373,000 | $335,700 | $410,300 | [12] |
| % receiving bridging therapy | 91.9% | 73.5% | 100.0% | [7] |
| % receiving lymphodepleting chemotherapy | ||||
| Bendamustine | 19.8% | 15.9% | 23.8% | [7] |
| Cyclophosphamide-fludarabine | 73.0% | 58.4% | 87.6% | [7] |
| % receiving SCT post CAR T cell infusion | 5.4% | 4.3% | 6.5% | [7] |
| Grade ≥ 3 AE incidence (%)c | ||||
| CRS but not NE | 7.2% | 5.8% | 8.6% | [16, 17] |
| NE but not CRS | 4.5% | 3.6% | 5.4% | [16, 17] |
| Both CRS and NE | 9.9% | 7.9% | 11.9% | [16, 17] |
| % receiving IVIG | 30.0% | 24.0% | 36.0% | [7] |
AE adverse event, CAR chimeric antigen receptor, CRS cytokine release syndrome, IVIG intravenous immune globulin, MAIC matching-adjusted indirect comparison, NE neurologic event, SCT stem cell transplant
aMAIC-adjusted data for axi-cel versus liso-cel on the share of patients experiencing both CRS and NE were not available. For axi-cel versus liso-cel, shares of patients with CRS but not NE, NE but not CRS, and both CRS and NE were derived from available MAIC-adjusted data on the share of patients with CRS with or without NE and the share of patients with NE with or without CRS, assuming that the ratio of the share of patients with both CRS and NE to the smaller of the former two shares equals that reported for liso-cel in the TRANSCEND trial [15]
bMAIC-adjusted data for axi-cel versus tisa-cel on the share of patients experiencing both CRS and NE were not available. For axi-cel versus tisa-cel, shares of patients with CRS but not NE, NE but not CRS, and both CRS and NE were derived from available MAIC-adjusted data on the share of patients with CRS with or without NE and the share of patients with NE with or without CRS, assuming that the ratio of the share of patients with both CRS and NE to the smaller of the former two shares equals that reported for tisa-cel in the JULIET trial [16]
cIn the ZUMA-1 and TRANSCEND trials, CRS was graded using the Lee scale [38]. To reduce potential bias introduced by use of different grading scales across the ZUMA-1, TRANSCEND, and JULIET trials, incidence of CRS regraded using the Lee scale as reported by Schuster et al. [17] was used in lieu of incidence of CRS graded using the Penn scale as reported by Schuster, et al. [7]