Purpose The anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy tisagenlecleucel was recently approved to treat relapsed or refractory pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia. With a one-time infusion cost of $475,000, tisagenlecleucel is currently the most expensive oncologic therapy. We aimed to determine whether tisagenlecleucel is cost effective compared with currently available treatments. Methods Markov modeling was used to evaluate tisagenlecleucel in pediatric relapsed or refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia from a US health payer perspective over a lifetime horizon. The model was informed by recent multicenter, single-arm clinical trials. Tisagenlecleucel (under a range of plausible long-term effectiveness) was compared with blinatumomab, clofarabine combination therapy (clofarabine, etoposide, and cyclophosphamide), and clofarabine monotherapy. Scenario and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to explore uncertainty. Main outcomes were life-years, discounted lifetime costs, discounted quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (3% discount rate). Results With an assumption of a 40% 5-year relapse-free survival rate, tisagenlecleucel increased life expectancies by 12.1 years and cost $61,000/QALY gained. However, at a 20% 5-year relapse-free survival rate, life-expectancies were more modest (3.8 years) and expensive ($151,000/QALY gained). At a 0% 5-year relapse-free survival rate and with use as a bridge to transplant, tisagenlecleucel increased life expectancies by 5.7 years and cost $184,000/QALY gained. Reduction of the price of tisagenlecleucel to $200,000 or $350,000 would allow it to meet a $100,000/QALY or $150,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold in all scenarios. Conclusion The long-term effectiveness of tisagenlecleucel is a critical but uncertain determinant of its cost effectiveness. At its current price, tisagenlecleucel represents reasonable value if it can keep a substantial fraction of patients in remission without transplantation; however, if all patients ultimately require a transplantation to remain in remission, it will not be cost effective at generally accepted thresholds. Price reductions would favorably influence cost effectiveness even if long-term clinical outcomes are modest.

No abstract

Background E-values are a recently introduced approach to evaluate confounding in observational studies. We aimed to empirically assess the current use of E-values in published literature. Methods We conducted a systematic literature search for all publications, published up till the end of 2018, which cited at least one of two inceptive E-value papers and presented E-values for original data. For these case publications we identified control publications, matched by journal and issue, where the authors had not calculated E-values. Results In total, 87 papers presented 516 E-values. Of the 87 papers, 14 concluded that residual confounding likely threatens at least some of the main conclusions. Seven of these 14 named potential uncontrolled confounders. 19 of 87 papers related E-value magnitudes to expected strengths of field-specific confounders. The median E-value was 1.88, 1.82, and 2.02 for the 43, 348, and 125 E-values where confounding was felt likely to affect the results, unlikely to affect the results, or not commented upon, respectively. The 69 case-control publication pairs dealt with effect sizes of similar magnitude. Of 69 control publications, 52 did not comment on unmeasured confounding and 44/69 case publications concluded that confounding was unlikely to affect study conclusions. Conclusions Few papers using E-values conclude that confounding threatens their results, and their E-values overlap in magnitude with those of papers acknowledging susceptibility to confounding. Facile automation in calculating E-values may compound the already poor handling of confounding. E-values should not be a substitute for careful consideration of potential sources of unmeasured confounding. If used, they should be interpreted in the context of expected confounding in specific fields.