Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Tisagenlecleucel Versus Blinatumomab in Children and Young Adults with Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia: Partitioned Survival Model to Assess the Impact of an Outcome-Based Payment Arrangement

Amy Gye (), Stephen Goodall and Richard Abreu Lourenco
Additional contact information
Amy Gye: University of Technology Sydney
Stephen Goodall: University of Technology Sydney
Richard Abreu Lourenco: University of Technology Sydney

PharmacoEconomics, 2023, vol. 41, issue 2, No 5, 175-186

Abstract: Abstract Objective This research assesses the impact of an outcome-based payment arrangement (OBA) linking complete remission (CR) to survival as a means of maintaining cost-effectiveness for a chimeric antigen receptor T cell (CAR-T) therapy in young patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Methods A partitioned survival model (PSM) was used to model the cost-effectiveness of tisagenlecleucel versus blinatumomab in ALL from the Australian healthcare system perspective. A decision tree modeled different OBAs by funneling patients into a series of PSMs based on response. Outcomes were informed by individual patient data, while costs followed Australian treatment practices. Costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were combined to calculate a single incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), reported in US dollars (2022) at a discount rate of 5% on costs and outcomes. Results For the base case, incremental costs and benefit were $379,595 and 4.27 QALYs, giving an ICER of $88,979. The ICER was most sensitive to discount rate ($57,660–$75,081), “cure point” ($62,718–$116,206) and extrapolation method ($76,018–$94,049). OBAs had a modest effect on the ICER when response rates varied. A responder-only payment was the most effective arrangement for maintaining the ICER ($88,249–$89,434), although this option was associated with the greatest financial uncertainty. A split payment arrangement (payment on infusion followed by payment on response) reduced variability in the ICER ($82,650–$99,154) compared with a single, upfront payment ($77,599–$107,273). Conclusion OBAs had a modest impact on reducing cost-effectiveness uncertainty. The value of OBAs should be weighed against the additional resources needed to administer such arrangements, and importantly overall cost to government.

Date: 2023
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-022-01188-w Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:pharme:v:41:y:2023:i:2:d:10.1007_s40273-022-01188-w

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40273

DOI: 10.1007/s40273-022-01188-w

Access Statistics for this article

PharmacoEconomics is currently edited by Timothy Wrightson and Christopher I. Carswell

More articles in PharmacoEconomics from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().