西格列汀与吡格列酮分别联用二甲双胍治疗2型糖尿病的成本-效果分析

目的对DDP-4抑制剂西格列汀与胰岛素增敏剂吡格列酮分别与二甲双胍联用及单独使用二甲双胍治疗2型糖尿病的临床疗效及成本-效果进行分析,寻求疗效显著且价格经济的用药方案。方法以我院2009年3月～2011年2月治疗的2型糖尿病患者203例为研究对象,将其随机分为A、B、C三组,A组使用西格列汀和二甲双胍联合用药方案;B组单独使用二甲双胍治疗方案;C组使用吡格列酮和二甲双胍联合用药方案,对三组患者进行药物经济学成本及临床疗效的对比分析,并进行统计学分析。结果三组服药12周成本分别为995.77元、159.38元、699.38元;三组患者控制空腹血糖的总有效率为89.4%、86.2%、83.3%,差异不具有统计学意义（P〉0.05）;对餐后2h血糖控制的总有效率为90.9%、73.8%、83.3%,A、C两组较B组有明显优势,且差异均具有统计学意义（P〈0.05）;A、C两组总有效率无显著差异性（P〉0.05）。结论使用二甲双胍控制患者的空腹血糖具有较好的成本-效果优势,而联合用药在控制餐后2h血糖的疗效均较单纯使用二甲双胍有明显优势,其中吡格列酮与二甲双胍联合用药较之西格列汀与二甲双胍联合用药较具有成本优势。     

维格列汀对绝经后女性2型糖尿病患者骨骼的影响

目的 探讨维格列汀对绝经后女性2型糖尿病(T2DM)合并骨质疏松(OP)患者骨密度(BMD)和骨代谢指标的影响.方法 选取2018年3月至2019年6月于菏泽市立医院内分泌科住院的绝经后女性T2DM合并OP患者60例作为研究对象,按照随机数字表法分为对照组与观察组,每组30例.对照组采用二甲双胍治疗,观察组采用二甲双胍...     

吡格列酮二甲双胍片治疗中国2型糖尿病的预算影响

目的 基于医疗保险支付方角度,预测吡格列酮二甲双胍片进入国家基本医疗保险目录后,在1～3年内对医疗保险基金可能产生的影响.方法 根据中国药物经济学评价指南,采用Excel构建1～3年的预算影响分析模型.模型中,适应证人群患病率、治疗率、发病率、用药依从性来源于文献调研;药品价格来源于米内网;吡格列酮二甲双胍复方制剂、噻...     

二甲双胍联合格列美脲治疗2型糖尿病疗效观察

目的探讨二甲双胍联合格列美脲治疗2型糖尿病的临床疗效。方法收集我院2012年12月至2013年12月诊治的2型糖尿病患者220例作为研究对象,以抛硬币的方式分为试验组与对照组,每组各110例。对照组患者单纯采用二甲双胍治疗,试验组采用二甲双胍联合格列美脲治疗,对两组患者的治疗效果进行分析对比。结果研究结果显示,两组患者治疗前HbA1c和全天胰岛素用量比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),经治疗后均得到明显改善,且试验组改善水平明显优于对照组(P<0.05)。试验组不良反应发生率为21.8%;对照组不良反应发生率为22.7%,两组患者不良反应发生率比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论二甲双胍联合格列美脲治疗2型糖尿病具有良好的临床疗效,且不会增加不良反应。     

卡格列净对2型糖尿病患者围手术期心力衰竭发生率及相关指标的影响

目的 探讨卡格列净对2型糖尿病患者围手术期心力衰竭发生率及相关指标的影响.方法 选取2017年10月至2020年6月大连市第二人民医院收治的围手术期2型糖尿病患者160例作为研究对象,按照治疗方案不同分为对照组(77例)与观察组(83例).对照组给予二甲双胍联合胰岛素治疗,观察组给予卡格列净联合胰岛素治疗,比较两组心力...     

格列美脲联合二甲双胍治疗2型糖尿病68例临床研究

目的探讨格列美脲联合二甲双胍治疗2型糖尿病的疗效和安全性。方法选取136例患者1:1随机分为两组,对照组采用二甲双胍治疗,观察组采用格列美脲联合二甲双胍治疗,比较两组疗效和安全性。结果治疗后,两组患者FBG、2hPBG、HbA1c均明显降低,与治疗前差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),且观察组下降更为明显,与对照组相比差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);BMI治疗前、后两组差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05);观察组低血糖不良反应发生率5.88%,胃肠反应发生率7.35%,对照组分别为4.41%和5.88%,观察组高于对照组,但并无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论格列美脲联合二甲双胍治疗2型糖尿病,对FBG、2hPBG、HbA1c控制明显,且未增加不良反应的发生,是一种安全有效的治疗方法。     

利拉鲁肽与格列美脲及二甲双胍治疗2型糖尿病的效果比较

目的探讨利拉鲁肽与格列美脲及二甲双胍治疗2型糖尿病的临床效果比较。方法选取大连市第五人民医院2016年6月至2017年8月收治的2型糖尿病患者96例作为研究对象,按随机数字表法分为两组,各48例。对照组患者给予格列美脲+二甲双胍治疗,观察组患者给予利拉鲁肽+二甲双胍治疗。治疗4个月,比较两组患者的治疗效果、治疗前后血糖相关指标[空腹血糖(FBG)、糖化血红蛋白(HbAlc)、餐后2小时血糖(2hPG)]及体重指数(BMI)水平变化、低血糖发生情况。结果观察组患者总有效率为83.3%(40/48),与对照组的85.4%(41/48)比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);两组患者治疗前FBG、HbAlc、2hPG、BMI相比,差异均无统计学意义(均P>0.05);治疗4个月后,两组患者FBG、HbAlc、2hPG、BMI低于治疗前,差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.05);观察组治疗4个月后FBG、BMI水平低于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);观察组低血糖发生率为8.3%(4/48),低于对照组的25.0%(12/48),差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论利拉鲁肽与格列美脲及二甲双胍治疗2型糖尿病,疗效接近,但利拉鲁肽联合二甲双胍治疗可显著降低患者的FBG、BMI水平,且低血糖发生率较低。     

2012年～2013年口服降糖药物应用分析

目的探讨2012年~2013年口服降糖药物的临床应用现状。方法统计医院药品信息管理系统中2012年~2013年所有口服降糖药物的使用数据,对用药频度(DDDs)排序进行比较。结果二甲双胍连续两年DDDs排序第1位,阿卡波糖DDDs值及排序均有明显增长,吡格列酮连续两年DDDs排序第3位。结论我院口服降糖药物品种结构合理,以多种药物相互配合治疗为主,可减少药物对患者带来的不良反应,增加药物的治疗效果,改善患者生活质量,降低病死率。     

利拉鲁肽与罗格列酮、格列美脲、艾塞那肽和甘精胰岛素治疗2型糖尿病患者的短期成本-效果比较

目的以第26周末达到HbA1c<7%、无体重增加和无低血糖事件作为糖尿病综合管理的有效复合终点,分析在中国2型糖尿病患者治疗中每日一次1.2mg利拉鲁肽相比罗格列酮、格列美脲、艾塞那肽和甘精胰岛素的经济性。方法利用利拉鲁肽全球Ⅲ期临床试验(LEADTM)的临床数据计算每日一次1.2mg利拉鲁肽相比罗格列酮、格列美脲、艾塞那肽和甘精胰岛素的成功治疗1例患者的成本。成本包括药物、针头、自我血糖监测,以及处置严重不良事件(SAE)、低血糖事件和体重干预的成本,效果指标为复合终点达标率,并进行单因素敏感度分析。结果在使用研究药物治疗26周后,相对罗格列酮、格列美脲、艾塞那肽和甘精胰岛素,每日一次1.2mg利拉鲁肽治疗每100例患者分别使额外26例、24例、7例和17例患者达到复合终点,利拉鲁肽成功治疗1例患者所需成本小于对应比较治疗方案。敏感度分析支持了结果的稳健性。结论相比罗格列酮、格列美脲、艾塞那肽和甘精胰岛素,利拉鲁肽是具有成本-效果的治疗方案。     

2型糖尿病常见用药方案的成本-效果分析

目的 评估临床常见治疗2型糖尿病(T2DM)4种双联降糖方案的疗效并进行成本-效果分析。方法 选取2020年1—12月于江苏省南通市第一人民医院门诊内分泌科就诊的140例T2DM患者作为研究对象,随机分为A、B、C、D组,每组35例。A、B、C、D组分别采用二甲双胍联合阿卡波糖、格列齐特、阿格列汀、达格列净治疗。治疗前及治疗12周时采集患者静脉血,检测空腹血糖(FBG)、餐后2 h血糖(2hPBG)、糖化血红蛋白(HbA1c)水平,同时定期随访并记录治疗过程中不良反应发生情况,比较4组临床疗效、成本-效果,并进行敏感性分析。结果 4组治疗有效率比较差异有统计学意义(P=0.045),D组治疗有效率最优;治疗后,4组患者FPG、2hPBG、HbA1c明显降低(P<0.05),组间比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);4种治疗糖尿病方案的成本-效果比分别为4.45元、5.07元、9.53元、6.04元;治疗方案D与治疗方案A相比,每增加一单位效果只需多花费17.91元。结论 在4种治疗方案中,二甲双胍联合阿卡波糖具有较好的药物经济学优势。     

Evaluation of the long-term cost-effectiveness of liraglutide therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes in France

Objectives:

The present study aimed to compare the projected long-term clinical and cost implications associated with liraglutide, sitagliptin and glimepiride in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus failing to achieve glycemic control on metformin monotherapy in France.

Methods:

Clinical input data for the modeling analysis were taken from two randomized, controlled trials (LIRA-DPP4 and LEAD-2). Long-term (patient lifetime) projections of clinical outcomes and direct costs (2013 Euros; €) were made using a validated computer simulation model of type 2 diabetes. Costs were taken from published France-specific sources. Future costs and clinical benefits were discounted at 3% annually. Sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results:

Liraglutide was associated with an increase in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.25 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and an increase in mean direct healthcare costs of €2558 per patient compared with sitagliptin. In the comparison with glimepiride, liraglutide was associated with an increase in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.23 QALYs and an increase in direct costs of €4695. Based on these estimates, liraglutide was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €10,275 per QALY gained vs sitagliptin and €20,709 per QALY gained vs glimepiride in France.

Conclusion:

Calculated ICERs for both comparisons fell below the commonly quoted willingness-to-pay threshold of €30,000 per QALY gained. Therefore, liraglutide is likely to be cost-effective vs sitagliptin and glimepiride from a healthcare payer perspective in France.     

聚乙二醇干扰素a-2a 与普通干扰素联合利巴韦林治疗慢性丙型肝炎的经济学评价

目的 评估聚乙二醇干扰素a-2a联合利巴韦林与普通干扰素联合利巴韦林治疗慢性丙型肝炎患者的健康效果、成本及其成本效果.方法 运用文献资料和Delphi专家咨询的数据,采用Markov 模型对聚乙二醇干扰素a-2a 与普通干扰素联合利巴韦林治疗慢性丙型肝炎进行经济学评价.结果 与普通干扰素相比,使用聚乙二醇干扰素a-2a48周治疗慢性丙型肝炎患者,人均延长2.19个质量调整生命年,同时减少终身医疗费用支出15296元.结论 使用聚乙二醇干扰素a-2a联合利巴韦林较普通干扰素联合利巴韦林治疗慢性丙型肝炎48周更具成本效果.     

Cost-effectiveness of add-on treatments to metformin in a Swedish setting: liraglutide vs sulphonylurea or sitagplitin

Objective:

To evaluate long-run cost-effectiveness in a Swedish setting for liraglutide compared with sulphonylureas (glimepiride) or sitagliptin, all as add-on to metformin for patients with type 2 diabetes insufficiently controlled with metformin in monotherapy.

Methods:

The IHE Cohort Model of Type 2 Diabetes was used to evaluate clinical and economic outcomes from a societal perspective. Model input data were obtained from two clinical trials, the Swedish National Diabetes Register and the literature. Cost data reflected year 2013 price level. The robustness of results was checked with one-way-sensitivity analysis and probability sensitivity analysis.

Results:

The cost per QALY gained for liraglutide (1.2?mg) compared to SU (glimepiride 4?mg), both as add-on to metformin, ranged from SEK 226,000 to SEK 255,000 in analyzed patient cohorts. The cost per QALY for liraglutide (1.2?mg) vs sitagliptin (100?mg) as second-line treatment was lower, ranging from SEK 149,000 to SEK 161,000. Costs of preventive treatment were driving costs, but there was also a cost offset from reduced costs of complications of ～20%. Notable cost differences were found for nephropathy, stroke, and heart failure. The predicted life expectancy with liraglutide increased the cost of net consumption for liraglutide.

Limitations:

The analysis was an ex-ante analysis using model input data from clinical trials which may not reflect effectiveness in real-world clinical practice in broader patient populations. This limitation was explored in the sensitivity analysis. The lack of specific data on loss of production due to diabetes complications implied that these costs may be under-estimated.

Conclusions:

Treatment strategies with liraglutide 1.2?mg improved the expected quality-of-life and increased costs when compared to SU and to sitagliptin for second-line add-on treatments. The cost per QALY for liraglutide was in the range considered medium by Swedish authorities.     

Long-term cost-consequence analysis of exenatide once weekly vs sitagliptin or pioglitazone for the treatment of type 2 diabetes patients in the United States

Abstract

Objective:

Exenatide once-weekly (ExQW) is a GLP-1 receptor agonist shown to lower glucose and cardiovascular risk factors in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The objective of this study was to estimate the clinical benefits and associated economic benefits of treatment with ExQW compared with sitagliptin or pioglitazone in the US.

Methods:

The IMS CORE Diabetes Model, a validated computer simulation model, was used to project lifetime clinical outcomes and complication costs. The costs of glucose-lowering drugs were excluded as not all prices were available. Baseline patient characteristics (mean values: age, 52.5 years; diabetes duration, 6 years; HbA1_c, 8.51%; body mass index, 32.12?kg/m²) and clinical data were derived from a phase 3 clinical trial that compared ExQW with sitagliptin or pioglitazone in T2DM patients. At 6 months, patients treated with ExQW had greater improvements in HbA1_c and body weight than those treated with sitagliptin or pioglitazone. Complication costs were extracted from published sources. Health outcomes and costs were discounted at 3% per year. Sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results:

Over 35 years, and compared with sitagliptin or pioglitazone, ExQW increased life expectancy by, respectively, 0.28 (13.76?±?0.17 vs 13.48?±?0.18) and 0.17 years (13.76?±?0.17 vs 13.59?±?0.17), and quality-adjusted life years by, respectively, 0.28 (9.56?±?0.12 vs 9.28?±?0.12) and 0.24 years (9.56?±?0.12 vs 9.32?±?0.12). ExQW was associated with lower lifetime complication costs: compared with sitagliptin or pioglitazone, ExQW saved, respectively US$2215 (US$55,647?±?2039 vs US$57,862?±?2159) and US$933 (US$55,647?±?2039 vs US$56,580?±?2007) direct cost per patient. Cost-savings resulted mainly from a lower projected cumulative incidence of cardiovascular diseases and neuropathic complications.

Limitations:

Short-term changes in surrogate end-points were used to project lifetime effects on clinical outcomes. Pharmacy costs were excluded from the analyses.

Conclusions:

Over a patient’s lifetime, ExQW was projected to improve health and decrease diabetes-related complication costs compared with sitagliptin or pioglitazone.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of dapagliflozin treatment versus metformin treatment in Chinese population with type 2 diabetes

Background and objective: Dapagliflozin is the first SGLT2 inhibitor available in China, where the disease burden of diabetes and its complications is very heavy. Because a new diabetes treatment strategy for diabetes should consider its cost-effectiveness, compared with an existing treatment, this study aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness between dapagliflozin and metformin treatment in China.

Methods: The Cardiff Diabetes Model (CDM) was used to estimate cost effectiveness and macro- and micro-vascular outcomes of dapagliflozin vs metformin. The CDM effectiveness inputs were derived from indirect comparative efficacy data from meta-analysis of 71 studies comparing monotherapy and add-on therapy of dapagliflozin vs metformin: dapagliflozin or metformin monotherapy, add-on therapy with other oral hypoglycemic agents, and add-on therapy with insulin. Direct medication costs and medical costs on treating diabetes were calculated based on published and local sources. A discount rate of 3% was applied to both costs and health effects. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed to assess uncertainties.

Results: The total healthcare costs accumulated over the lifetime on dapagliflozin treatment arm was 8,626 Chinese yuan higher than the metformin treatment arm for an individual patient, and the quality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained with dapagliflozin treatment was 0.8 more than metformin treatment. Therefore, an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 10,729 yuan per QALY gained for dapagliflozin treatment arm vs metformin treatment arm. The cost-effectiveness results were robust to various sensitivity analyses.

Conclusion: Dapagliflozin treatment was more cost-effective compared with metformin treatment for Chinese type 2 diabetes patients. However, the findings of favorable cost-effectiveness results for dapagliflozin are largely driven by the effects of favorable weight profile on clinical, utility, and costs in the Cardiff model.     

Cost-effectiveness of metformin plus vildagliptin compared with metformin plus sulphonylurea for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a Portuguese healthcare system perspective

Objective:

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of vildagliptin plus metformin vs generic sulphonylurea plus metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, not controlled with metformin, from a Portuguese healthcare system perspective.

Methods:

A cost-effectiveness model was constructed using risk equations from the UK Prospective Diabetes Study Outcomes Model with a 10,000-patient cohort and a lifetime horizon. The model predicted microvascular and macrovascular complications and mortality in yearly cycles. Patients entered the model as metformin monotherapy failures and switched to alternative treatments (metformin plus basal-bolus insulin and subsequently metformin plus intensive insulin) when glycated hemoglobin A1c >7.5% was reached. Baseline patient characteristics and clinical variables were derived from a Portuguese epidemiological study. Cost estimates were based on direct medical costs only. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the model.

Results:

There were fewer non-fatal diabetes-related adverse events (AEs) in patients treated with metformin plus vildagliptin compared with patients treated with metformin plus sulphonylurea (6752 vs 6815). Addition of vildagliptin compared with sulphonylurea led to increased drug acquisition costs but reduced costs of AEs, managing morbidities, and monitoring patients. Treatment with metformin plus vildagliptin yielded a mean per-patient gain of 0.1279 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and a mean per-patient increase in total cost of €1161, giving an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €9072 per QALY. Univariate analyses showed that ICER values were robust and ranged from €4195 to €16,052 per QALY when different parameters were varied.

Limitations:

The model excluded several diabetes-related morbidities, such as peripheral neuropathy and ulceration, and did not model second events. Patients were presumed to enter the model with no diabetes-related complications.

Conclusion:

Treatment with metformin plus vildagliptin compared with metformin plus sulphonylurea is expected to result in a lower incidence of diabetes-related AEs and to be a cost-effective treatment strategy.     

Cost-effectiveness of saxagliptin vs glimepiride as a second-line therapy added to metformin in Type 2 diabetes in China

Abstract

Objective:

This study aims to estimate the long-term cost-effectiveness of saxagliptin?+?metformin (SAXA?+?MET) vs glimepiride?+?metformin (GLI?+?MET) in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) inadequately controlled with MET in China.     

Development of a health economic model to evaluate the potential benefits of optimal serum potassium management in patients with heart failure

Abstract

Aims: Patients with heart failure are at increased risk of hyperkalemia, particularly when treated with renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitor (RAASi) agents. This study developed a model to quantify the potential health and economic value associated with sustained potassium management and optimal RAASi therapy in heart failure patients.

Materials and methods: A patient-level, fixed-time increment stochastic simulation model was designed to characterize the progression of heart failure through New York Heart Association functional classes, and predict associations between serum potassium levels, RAASi use, and consequent long-term outcomes. Following internal and external validation exercises, model analyses sought to quantify the health and economic benefits of optimizing both serum potassium levels and RAASi therapy in heart failure patients. Analyses were conducted using a UK payer perspective, independent of costs and utilities related to pharmacological potassium management.

Results: Validation against multiple datasets demonstrated the predictive capability of the model. Compared to those who discontinued RAASi to manage serum potassium, patients with normokalemia and ongoing RAASi therapy benefited from longer life expectancy (+1.38 years), per-patient quality-adjusted life year gains (+0.53 QALYs), cost savings (£110), and associated net monetary benefit (£10,679 at £20,000 per QALY gained) over a lifetime horizon. The predicted value of sustained potassium management and ongoing RAASi treatment was largely driven by reduced mortality and hospitalization risks associated with optimal RAASi therapy.

Limitations: Several modeling assumptions were made to account for a current paucity of published literature; however, ongoing refinement and validation of the model will ensure its continued accuracy as the clinical landscape of hyperkalemia evolves.

Conclusions: Predictions generated by this novel modeling approach highlight the value of sustained potassium management to avoid hyperkalemia, enable RAASi therapy, and improve long-term health economic outcomes in patients with heart failure.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of bariatric surgery for morbid obesity in Belgium

Aims: This study presents the cost-effectiveness analysis of bariatric surgery in Belgium from a third-party payer perspective for a lifetime and 10-year horizon.

Materials and methods: A decision analytic model incorporating Markov process was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of gastric bypass, sleeve gastrectomy, and adjustable gastric banding against conventional medical management (CMM). In the model, patients could undergo surgery, or experience post-surgery complications, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, or die. Transition probabilities, costs, and utilities were derived from the literature. The impact of different surgical methods on body mass index (BMI) level in the base-case analysis was informed by the Scandinavian Obesity Surgery Registry and the Swedish Obese Subject (SOS) study. Healthcare resource use and costs were obtained from Belgian sources. A base-case analysis was performed for the population, the characteristics of which were obtained from surgery candidates in Belgium.

Results: In the base-case analysis over a 10-year time horizon, the increment in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained from bariatric surgery vs CMM was 1.4 per patient, whereas the incremental cost was €3,788, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €2,809 per QALY. Over a lifetime, bariatric surgery produced savings of €9,332, an additional 1.1 life years and 5.0 QALYs. Bariatric surgery was cost-effective at 10 years post-surgery and dominant over conventional management over a lifetime horizon.

Limitations: The model did not include the whole scope of obesity-related complications, and also did not account for variation in surgery outcomes for different populations of diabetic patients. Also, the data about management of patients after surgery was based on assumptions and the opinion of a clinical expert.

Conclusions: It was demonstrated that a current mix of bariatric surgery methods was cost-effective at 10 years post-surgery and cost-saving over the lifetime of the Belgian patient cohort considered in this analysis.     

Cost-effectiveness of axicabtagene ciloleucel for adult patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma in the United States

Abstract

Purpose: Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) was recently approved for treatment of relapsed or refractory (R/R) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) following two or more prior therapies. As the first CAR T-cell therapy available for adults in the US, there are important questions about clinical and economic value. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of axi-cel compared to salvage chemotherapy using a decision model and a US payer perspective.

Materials and methods: A decision model was developed to estimate life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and lifetime cost for adult patients with R/R LBCL treated with axi-cel vs salvage chemotherapy (R-DHAP). Patient-level analyses of the ZUMA-1 and SCHOLAR-1 studies were used to inform the model and to estimate the proportion achieving long-term survival. Drug and procedure costs were derived from US average sales prices and Medicare reimbursement schedules. Future healthcare costs in long-term remission was derived from per capita Medicare spending. Utility values were derived from patient-level data from ZUMA-1 and external literature. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses evaluated uncertainty. Outcomes were calculated over a lifetime horizon and were discounted at 3% per year.

Results: In the base case, LYs, QALYs, and lifetime costs were 9.5, 7.7, and $552,921 for axi-cel vs 2.6, 1.1, and $172,737 for salvage chemotherapy, respectively. The axi-cel cost per QALY gained was $58,146. Cost-effectiveness was most sensitive to the fraction achieving long-term remission, discount rate, and axi-cel price. The likelihood that axi-cel is cost-effective was 95% at a willingness to pay of $100,000 per QALY.

Conclusion: Axi-cel is a potentially cost-effective alternative to salvage chemotherapy for adults with R/R LBCL. Long-term follow-up is necessary to reduce uncertainties about health outcomes.