Practice efficiency and total cost of care with bispecifics and CAR-T in relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: an institutional perspective1.

Aim: Novel treatment options for relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma include T-cell targeting therapies. Practice efficiency and cost are important for informed treatment decisions. Materials/methods: An institutional decision-maker cost model was developed for 6-month, 1-year and median cycles of treatment time horizons comparing practice efficiency and costs of epcoritamab vs glofitamab and axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel). Results: Overall, epcoritamab required the shortest personnel and chair time, except over 1 year (second shortest chair time). Across all time horizons, epcoritamab was cost-saving vs axi-cel and had similar costs to glofitamab on a per-month basis. Conclusion: Epcoritamab reduced personnel and chair time. Additionally, epcoritamab was cost-saving vs axi-cel and had similar costs to glofitamab on a per-month basis.

There are new ways to treat diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, which is a type of cancer called lymphoma. When new treatments are available it is important to see if they take more or less time to give to patients and how much they cost versus other treatments. This study looked at three drugs used to treat diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, including epcoritamab, axi-cel and glofitamab. It estimated the time and cost with those treatments in patients who get them for 6 months, 1 year or for the most common length of time in the clinical trials. In most of the scenarios, epcoritamab had the least time needed for nurses or doctors and the least time needed for a patient to be in a chair in a clinic. When thinking about the cost per month, epcoritamab saved money versus axi-cel and was similar to glofitamab.

Health Care Resource Utilization and Total Costs of Care Among Patients with Diffuse Large B Cell Lymphoma Treated with Chimeric Antigen Receptor T Cell Therapy in the United States.

The use of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy after a second relapse of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) has shown favorable efficacy in clinical trials; however, little is known about health care resource utilization (HCRU) and costs of CAR T cell therapy for patients treated in real-world settings. We assessed treatment patterns, HCRU, costs, and safety in patients receiving CAR T cell therapy for relapsed or refractory DLBCL across 3 US commercial claims databases. Adults with DLBCL treated with CAR T cell therapy were identified in the following 3 claims databases: Optum® Clinformatics® Data Mart, IBM MarketScan® Commercial & Medicare Database, and IQVIA PharMetrics® Plus. Mean total costs were calculated and adjusted to 2019 US dollars. HCRU and costs within 3 months of infusion were stratified by safety events of interest, including neurological events (NEs) and cytokine release syndrome (CRS), identified via unvalidated algorithms designed based on expert medical opinion. A total of 191 patients receiving CAR T cell therapy were identified across the databases; their median age ranged from 56 to 67 years, and 63% to 75% were male. Most patients (88% to 98%) received CAR T cell infusions in the inpatient setting; 30% to 75% received bridging therapy. CRS was reported in 75% to 84% of patients (severe CRS, 15% to 32%), and NEs were reported in 58% to 69% (severe NEs, 25% to 43%). Mean total inpatient hospital days ranged from 17 to 22 days and increased with severe CRS (19 to 27 days) or severe NEs (22 to 29 days). Mean total health care expenditures ranged from $380,000 to $526,000 and were generally higher with severe CRS or NEs (∼$406,000 to $679,000). HCRU and costs associated with CAR T cell therapy may vary in the real world depending on several factors, including occurrence and severity of adverse events.

Health State Utilities for Adverse Events Associated with Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell Therapy in Large B-Cell Lymphoma.

BACKGROUND: Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy provides effective treatment for large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL). Cost-utility analyses examining and comparing the value of these treatments require health state utilities representing key characteristics to differentiate among therapies. This study estimated utilities for adverse events (AEs) associated with CAR T-cell therapy, including cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurological events (NEs). METHODS: Health state vignettes were drafted based on literature review, AE reports from a trial of CAR T-cell therapy, and clinician input. Health states were valued in time trade-off interviews with general population participants in the UK. The first vignette described relapsed/refractory LBCL treated with CAR T-cell therapy without AEs. Five other vignettes had the same LBCL and treatment description, with the addition of an AE. Disutilities (i.e., utility decrease) associated with these AEs were calculated by subtracting the utility of the health state without AEs from those of the other health states. RESULTS: Interviews were completed with 218 participants (50% male; mean age 49 years). Mean (standard deviation [SD]) utility for CAR T-cell therapy without AEs was 0.73 (0.30). Mean (SD) disutilities associated with CRS were -0.01 (0.04) for grade 1, -0.05 (0.09) for grade 2, and -0.23 (0.24) for grade 3/4. Mean (SD) disutilities associated with NEs were -0.04 (0.07) for grade 1/2 and -0.18 (0.22) for grade 3/4. CONCLUSIONS: More severe AEs were associated with greater disutilities. Health state utilities estimated in this study may be useful in cost-effectiveness models examining the value of CAR T-cell therapy in patients with LBCL.

Travel-Related Economic Burden of Chimeric Antigen Receptor T Cell Therapy Administration by Site of Care.

INTRODUCTION: We previously examined how expanding access to chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy administration sites impacted patient travel distances and time. In the current study, we estimated travel-related economic burden associated with site-of-care options among patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B cell lymphoma. METHODS: We used geographic information system methods to quantify travel-related economic burden across three site-of-care scenarios: academic hospitals; academic and community multispecialty hospitals; and academic and community multispecialty hospitals plus nonacademic specialty oncology network centers. Socioeconomic status, administration sites, and county of residence were derived from the US Census Bureau and publicly available sources. Travel costs were based on governmental guidelines, US census wage data, and Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Travel distance and time to the nearest CAR T cell therapy administration sites were estimated from previous research. RESULTS: Total national estimated costs associated with traveling for CAR T cell therapy were $21.1 million if CAR T cell therapy was offered exclusively in academic hospitals, and $14.7 million if expanded to include community hospitals plus nonacademic specialty oncology network centers, representing a $6.5-million reduction associated with expanding access to eligible patients. The largest cost-saving component was lodging/meals. Regional and demographic cost differences were statistically significant between academic hospitals and nonacademic hospitals/specialty oncology centers. In all scenarios, patients living below the federal poverty level (FPL) had higher weighted mean total costs versus patients living above the FPL. White and Native American patients were estimated to have the highest weighted mean total costs across race/ethnicity groups. For all subgroups, costs were reduced by expanding access beyond academic hospitals. CONCLUSION: CAR T cell therapy is currently restricted to academic hospitals; total travel costs could be substantially decreased if access is expanded to nonacademic hospitals and specialty oncology centers. Patients in rural areas and those living below the FPL are particularly disadvantaged by restricted access.

Access to Chimeric Antigen Receptor T Cell Therapy for Diffuse Large B Cell Lymphoma.

INTRODUCTION: Geographic access to novel oncology therapies, and the extent to which it may vary by potential sites of care, regions, and population characteristics, is poorly understood. We examined how expanding access to chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy administration sites impacts patient travel distances and time. METHODS: We used geographic information system techniques to calculate shortest travel distance and time between patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and the nearest CAR T cell therapy administration site in three scenarios: academic hospitals; academic and community multispecialty hospitals; and academic and community multispecialty hospitals plus nonacademic specialty oncology network centers. Main outcome measures were differences in travel distance and time among the scenarios and the relationship between travel time and socioeconomic status, race, rural-urban areas, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma clusters. Non-Hodgkin lymphoma incidence, socioeconomic status, and administration centers were derived from governmental/publicly available data sources. RESULTS: Of 3922 patients eligible for CAR T cell therapy, more than 37% had to travel more than 1 h to the nearest academic hospital. Average travel time and distance were significantly reduced by 23% and 30% (P < 0.001), respectively, when access was expanded to include community hospitals plus a broader range of oncology specialty treatment centers. Compared to academic hospitals alone, increasing access to include community hospitals decreased time and distance by 7% and 8% (P < 0.01), respectively. In addition, there would be a lower proportion of sites operating as the only care provider within 25 miles if access was expanded outside of academic hospitals only. Longer travel time was associated with lower socioeconomic status. CONCLUSION: Many patients with DLBCL have long travel times to an academic hospital that administers CAR T cell therapy. Expanding access to care through site-of-care planning will help address regional, rural-urban, and sociodemographic equity in the geographic allocation of CAR T cell therapy.

Cytokine release syndrome and neurological event costs in lisocabtagene maraleucel-treated patients in the TRANSCEND NHL 001 trial.

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies have demonstrated high response rates in patients with relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL); however, these therapies are associated with 2 CAR T cell-specific potentially severe adverse events (AEs): cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurological events (NEs). This study estimated the management costs associated with CRS/NEs among patients with relapsed/refractory LBCL using data from the pivotal TRANSCEND NHL 001 trial of lisocabtagene maraleucel, an investigational CD19-directed defined composition CAR T-cell product with a 4-1BB costimulation domain administered at equal target doses of CD8+ and CD4+ CAR+ T cells. This retrospective analysis of patients from TRANSCEND with prospectively identified CRS and/or NE episodes examined relevant trial-observed health care resource utilization (HCRU) associated with toxicity management based on the severity of the event from the health care system perspective. Cost estimates for this analysis were taken from publicly available databases and published literature. Of 268 treated patients as of April 2019, 127 (47.4%) experienced all-grade CRS and/or NEs, which were predominantly grade ≤2 (77.2%). Median total AE management costs ranged from $1930 (grade 1 NE) to $177 343 (concurrent grade ≥3 CRS and NE). Key drivers of cost were facility expenses, including intensive care unit and other inpatient hospitalization lengths of stay. HCRU and costs were significantly greater among patients with grade ≥3 AEs (22.8%). Therefore, CAR T-cell therapies with a low incidence of severe CRS/NEs will likely reduce HCRU and costs associated with managing patients receiving CAR T-cell therapy. This clinical trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02631044.