The English HTA body NICE has actually published its draft recommendations on axicel for r/r DBCLC in 2L. It largely accepted the comparator from ZUMA-7 because axicel had not, at the time of assessment, been recommended for “routine commissioning” in the NHS (it has now, as it happens). They therefore allowed the company to adjust for crossover in secondary analyses.
The company also submitted additional data to NICE and state that 56% of patients in the SoC arm went on to receive CAR-T - so much higher than the 22 you reasonably estimated. The companies submission (plus academic critique) is available.
Thought provoking as always!
The English HTA body NICE has actually published its draft recommendations on axicel for r/r DBCLC in 2L. It largely accepted the comparator from ZUMA-7 because axicel had not, at the time of assessment, been recommended for “routine commissioning” in the NHS (it has now, as it happens). They therefore allowed the company to adjust for crossover in secondary analyses.
The company also submitted additional data to NICE and state that 56% of patients in the SoC arm went on to receive CAR-T - so much higher than the 22 you reasonably estimated. The companies submission (plus academic critique) is available.
See NICE decision summary here: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/gid-ta10580/documents/129
And company submission to NICE here: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/gid-ta10580/documents/committee-papers