PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 9, 2026European Journal Of Haematology1 citationsOpen Access

Cost‐Effectiveness Analysis of Second‐Line Lisocabtagene Maraleucel in the Treatment of Refractory or Relapsed Large B‐Cell Lymphoma

View Full Paper
CTCatherine ThieblemontFCF. ColratRSR. Sellami

Key Points

  • The study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of lisocabtagene maraleucel compared to standard care for relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma.
  • Developed a 3-health-state model to compare treatments over 20 years in France.
  • Extrapolated efficacy and safety data from relevant clinical trials.
  • Calculated costs using French-specific healthcare economic sources.
  • Assessed outcomes using quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and life years (LY).
  • Conducted probabilistic sensitivity analysis to test the robustness of the findings.
  • Lisocabtagene maraleucel yielded 5.7 QALY and 6.4 LY at a cost of €265,907.
  • Standard care generated 4.4 QALY and 5.1 LY for €233,903.
  • The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was €24,580 per QALY gained, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was €23,464 per LY gained.
  • In 92% of simulations, lisocabtagene maraleucel proved more effective but also more costly.

Abstract

ABSTRACT Objectives CAR‐T cell therapies such as lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso‐cel) have transformed the treatment of patients with second line primary refractory or early relapsed ≤ 12 months (R/R) large B‐cell lymphoma (LBCL). The objective of this study was to assess the cost‐effectiveness of liso‐cel compared to standard of care (SOC) to treat R/R LBCL in France. Methods A 3‐health‐state model was developed to compare liso‐cel to SOC over 20 years in France. Efficacy and safety were extrapolated from the TRANSFORM trial (NCT03575351), or DESCAR‐T (registry of patients treated with a CAR‐T in France). Costs were calculated using French‐specific sources. Outcomes were quality‐adjusted life years (QALY), life‐years (LY), total costs, incremental cost‐utility and cost‐effectiveness ratios (ICUR, ICER). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was conducted to assess the robustness of the results. Results Liso‐cel generated 5.7 QALY (6.4 LY) for a €265 907. SOC generated 4.4 QALY (5.1 LY) for €233 903. ICUR and ICER were estimated at €24 580/QALY and €23 464/LY gained versus SOC. PSA showed that liso‐cel was more effective and more costly in 92% of the simulations. Conclusions Liso‐cel is cost‐effective versus SOC to treat R/R LBCL patients in France. Generation of long‐term real‐world data is needed in order to validate these findings.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Thieblemont et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69897a06f0ec2af6756e837fhttps://doi.org/10.1111/ejh.70131
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper