Photo from Novartis
Tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah)
The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) has made policy recommendations intended to ensure affordability and access to chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies.
ICER released a Final Evidence Report on tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah, Novartis) and axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta, Kite Pharma/Gilead), 2 CAR T-cell therapies approved in the US to treat B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), respectively.
The report says the pricing of these therapies aligns with patient benefit, but changes will be needed in future pricing, payment, and delivery mechanisms to ensure patient access without threatening health system affordability.
“Given the currently available evidence, these therapies appear to be effective options for those with B-ALL or NHL, though uncertainty in the evidence raised questions around the long-term value for money,” said Dan Ollendorf, PhD, ICER’s chief scientific officer.
Net health benefit
ICER’s report says tisagenlecleucel provides a net health benefit for children with B-ALL, and both tisagenlecleucel and axicabtagene ciloleucel provide a net health benefit for adults with certain types of NHL. (Novartis is seeking approval for tisagenlecleucel in NHL).
The evidence suggests there is at least a small net health benefit of the CAR T-cell therapies compared to other therapies. The benefit may be substantial, but uncertainties remain.
The data show complete remission (CR), disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS) rates are superior for NHL patients who receive axicabtagene ciloleucel, compared to patients who receive standard chemoimmunotherapy regimens.
Similarly, B-ALL patients treated with tisagenlecleucel have superior CR, DFS, and OS rates to patients treated with standard therapies. CR and OS rates are also superior in NHL patients treated with tisagenlecleucel, but DFS has not been reported in this population.
The report says there is insufficient evidence to distinguish between the 2 CAR T-cell therapies for the treatment of NHL.
Toxicity and uncertainty
The report highlights the fact that cytokine release syndrome, neurological symptoms, and B-cell aplasia have been observed in patients who receive CAR T-cell therapies. However, these sometimes severe adverse events are generally “manageable.”
In addition to toxicity, the report highlights sources of uncertainty. These include the fact that studies of tisagenlecleucel and axicabtagene ciloleucel are small, single-arm trials with short follow-up; comparisons with historical controls may be misleading; and improvements in the CAR T-cell manufacturing process may change outcomes.
Cost-effectiveness
The report states that the cost-effectiveness of each therapy fell below or within commonly cited thresholds of $50,000 to $150,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) over a lifetime.
For its analyses, ICER used the wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) plus an assumed hospital mark-up. The analyses were also based on the assumption that survival benefits observed in clinical trials would continue after the trials ended.
For tisagenlecleucel in pediatric B-ALL, the WAC is $475,000. The long-term cost-effectiveness compared to clofarabine is $45,871 per QALY gained.
For axicabtagene ciloleucel in adults with NHL, the WAC is $373,000. The long-term cost-effectiveness compared to salvage chemotherapy is $136,078 per QALY gained. The effectiveness assumptions for chemotherapy were based on an average of salvage chemotherapy regimens from the SCHOLAR-1 trial, and the cost assumptions were based on the cost of the R-DHAP (rituximab, dexamethasone, cytarabine, and cisplatin) regimen.
The report says tisagenlecleucel’s price would remain in alignment with value even if price premiums of 102% to 194% were applied.
Meanwhile, axicabtagene ciloleucel’s price could be increased by up to 11% and remain in alignment with the upper threshold ($150,000 per QALY gained) but would need to be discounted by 28% to align with the lower threshold ($100,000 per QALY gained).
Tisagenlecleucel, as a treatment for B-ALL, is not expected to cross the $915 million threshold for annual budget impact.
However, the short-term costs of axicabtagene ciloleucel for relapsed/refractory NHL could exceed the threshold. Only 38% of the estimated 5900 eligible patients could receive axicabtagene ciloleucel in a year before crossing the threshold.
Because of these findings, ICER issued an “Affordability and Access Alert” for axicabtagene ciloleucel.
This alert is intended to signal when the added costs associated with a new treatment may be difficult for the healthcare system to absorb over the short-term without displacing other needed services or contributing to unsustainable growth in healthcare insurance costs.
“Based on current evidence, both therapies appear to be priced in alignment with their clinical value, but there are potential short-term affordability concerns—for axicabtagene ciloleucel under its current indication and for both treatments should they receive future approvals for broader patient populations,” Dr Ollendorf said.
Panel voting results
ICER’s report was reviewed at a public meeting of the California Technology Assessment Forum on March 2.
Most of the panel said tisagenlecleucel provides intermediate long-term value for money when treating B-ALL. However, the significant uncertainty surrounding the long-term risks and benefits of the therapy precluded a high-value vote.
After deliberating on the value of axicabtagene ciloleucel to treat NHL, the panel’s votes were split between low-value and intermediate-value, driven by similar concerns about long-term uncertainty.
Policy recommendations
Following the voting session, ICER convened a policy roundtable of experts, including physicians, patient advocates, manufacturer representatives, and payer representatives.
Based on the roundtable discussion, ICER developed recommendations for enhanced stakeholder communication, innovative payment models, generation of additional evidence, settings of care, and patient education.
“With many other potentially transformative therapies in the pipeline, stakeholders must collaborate now to develop payment and delivery systems that can ensure timely patient access, manage short-term affordability for expensive one-time treatments, and continue to reward the innovation that brings these new treatments to market,” Dr Ollendorf said.
Some of ICER’s recommendations include:
- When launching novel therapies approved with limited clinical evidence, such as CAR T-cell therapies, manufacturers and payers should consider using a lower launch price that could be increased if substantial clinical benefits are confirmed or using a higher initial price tied to a requirement for refunds or rebates if real-world evidence fails to confirm high expectations.
- Outcomes-based pricing arrangements must be linked to “meaningful clinical outcomes assessed with sufficient follow up.”
- Hospital mark-up for CAR T-cell therapies “should reflect the expected additional cost for care delivered in the hospital, rather than a percentage of the drug cost to avoid perverse incentives in choosing the treatment location.”
- Initially, CAR T-cell therapies should be delivered in “manufacturer-accredited centers to ensure the quality and appropriateness of care.” Later, “centers of excellence accredited by specialty societies” can administer these therapies, as long as providers have “sufficient expertise” to manage serious side effects.
- Centers should ensure that patients understand what to expect from CAR T-cell therapy, including long-term consequences.
- Because additional evidence on CAR T-cell therapies is needed, all patients who receive these therapies should enter into a registry with planned long-term follow-up.
- Studies should determine the optimal timing of CAR T-cell therapy in the sequence of treatments for B-ALL and NHL.
Additional recommendations and more details are available in ICER’s report.
About ICER
ICER is an independent, non-profit research institute that produces reports analyzing evidence on the effectiveness and value of drugs and other medical services.
ICER’s reports include evidence-based calculations of prices for new drugs that reflect the degree of improvement expected in long-term patient outcomes, while also highlighting price levels that might contribute to unaffordable short-term cost growth for the overall healthcare system.
ICER’s reports incorporate input from stakeholders and are the subject of public hearings through 3 core programs: the California Technology Assessment Forum, the Midwest Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council, and the New England Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council.
These independent panels review ICER’s reports at public meetings to deliberate on the evidence and develop recommendations for how patients, clinicians, insurers, and policymakers can improve the quality and value of healthcare.