A Canadian Cost-Utility Analysis of Epcoritamab Versus Current Therapies in Third-Line or Later Large B-Cell Lymphoma
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Patients with third-line or later (3L+) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) face a dismal prognosis, with high rates of refractory disease. Rituximab-based chemoimmunotherapy (R-CIT), or targeted therapies approved in Canada (polatuzumab vedotin + bendamustine + rituximab [pola-BR], and tafasitamab + lenalidomide [tafa-len]) present significant limitations in terms of clinical outcomes, with low overall survival and high toxicity. Although chimeric antigen T-cell (CAR-T) therapies are now approved and funded in Canada, not all patients are eligible for CAR-T, and even eligible patients face access barriers due to the intensive monitoring and complex processes required. This analysis examines the subcutaneous bispecific antibody epcoritamab for patients who are unable to receive (whether due to clinical ineligibility or other reasons, such as access barriers or patient preference) or have previously received CAR-T in the Canadian 3L+ LBCL treatment setting, from a public payer perspective. Methods: A cost-utility partitioned survival model was developed to follow 3L+ LBCL patients over a lifetime. Epcoritamab efficacy was based on extrapolations of Kaplan-Meier data from the pivotal phase 1/2 EPCORE NHL-1 (NCT03625037) study, while comparator efficacy was informed by matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) in three key populations: the overall intention-to-treat (ITT) 3L+ LBCL population (base case scenario, n=157), and two subgroups consisting of patients with no prior CAR-T (Key Scenario 1 [n=96]; including both CAR-T eligible and ineligible patients), and CAR-T eligible patients with no prior CAR-T (Key Scenario 2 [n=57]). Comparator selection in each population was based on the availability of comparative data to be used in MAIC analyses. In the base case, available comparators were pola-BR, glofitamab, and tafa-len; in Key Scenario 1, available comparators were R-CIT, pola-BR, and CAR-T therapies. In Key Scenario 2, the available comparators were CAR-T therapies. Comparison to pola-BR was performed using two different data sources, based on data availability. In the base case (ITT) population, the only available dataset for comparison to pola-BR was an observational real-world dataset (Liebers et al, Blood Adv 2021), while imputed data from a randomized control trial (EUnetHTA PTJA06, 2020) was used to inform the comparison to pola-BR in Key Scenario 1. Costs were reported in 2023 Canadian dollars, and were based on Canadian governmental resources, health technology assessments, and published literature. Utilities were derived from the NHL-1 study. The base case was probabilistic (n=1000 simulations); multiple sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed to assess model uncertainty. Results: At a traditional willingness to pay threshold of $50,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), epcoritamab was cost-effective as compared to R-CIT, pola-BR, tafa-len, and the bispecific antibody glofitamab. In the base case, epcoritamab exhibited incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs) of $12,200/QALY, $4,917/QALY, and $36,166/QALY versus pola-BR, tafa-len, and glofitamab respectively; in Key Scenario 1, epcoritamab had ICURs of $37,794/QALY and $44,963/QALY versus R-CIT and pola-BR respectively. These results were consistent across multiple sensitivity analyses, the majority of which produced an ICUR less than $50,000/QALY. Similarly, epcoritamab was consistently dominant or cost-saving versus CAR-T therapies in Key Scenarios 1 and 2, irrespective of variation in scenario inputs. In all three populations assessed in this analysis, epcoritamab was shown to be cost-effective at a threshold of $50,000/QALY as per the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve in Canada. Conclusion: Epcoritamab is a consistently cost-effective (as compared to R-CIT, pola-BR, tafa-len, or glofitamab) or dominant/cost-saving (versus CAR-T) option in the high-risk, difficult-to-treat 3L+ LBCL setting, demonstrating its economic value to the healthcare system.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,010 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».