Paving the Road for Chimeric Antigen Receptor T Cells: American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy 80/20 Task Force Consensus on Challenges and Solutions to Improving Efficiency of Clinical Center Certification and Maintenance of Operations for Commercially Approved Immune Effector Cell Therapies.

As the number and type of regulatory authority-approved cellular therapies grow, clinical treatment centers face a heavy burden of duplicative documentation around initial qualification, ongoing auditing, and reporting, with overlapping requirements from each manufacturer to ensure safe use of their specific product, which in the United States are stipulated under individual Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Biologic License Applications. The American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy (ASTCT) convened the 80/20 Task Force to consider challenges and potential solutions to these issues. The Task Force proposed that 80% of manufacturers' requirements for onboarding and ongoing operations of commercially available products could be standardized and streamlined. Task Force members interviewed dozens of stakeholders, including clinicians at large academic medical centers already using commercial and investigational immune effector cell (IEC) products, regulators, members of accrediting bodies and professional cellular therapy societies, and manufacturers of IEC therapies for oncologic indications. In November 2021, the Task Force organized and led virtual discussions in a public forum and at a private ASTCT 80/20 Workshop at the online AcCELLerate Forum, a cellular-therapy stakeholders' meeting organized by the ASTCT, National Marrow Donor Program (NMDP), and Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR). At the workshop, approximately 60 stakeholders worked to identify and prioritize common challenges in onboarding and maintenance of operations at clinical sites for commercial FDA-approved and future IEC therapies and ways to streamline the process. It was agreed that standardization would improve efficiency of onboarding, allowing more cost-effective, sustainable growth of approved IEC therapies at treatment centers, and facilitate wider access while maintaining safety and clinical success. This early but extensive survey of stakeholders resulted in 5 overarching suggestions for both established and emerging treatment centers: (1) eliminate duplication in accreditation and auditing of clinical sites; (2) define expectations for the education about and management of CAR-T therapy toxicities to potentially replace product-specific REMS programs; (3) streamline current REMS education, testing, and data reporting; (4) standardize information technology (IT) platforms supporting enrollment, clinical site-manufacturer communication, and logistics of maintaining chain of identity/chain of custody across multiple transportation steps; and (5) encourage the use of universal nomenclature by cell therapy manufacturers. Future discussions need to engage a broader range of stakeholders, including administrators, pharmacists, nurses, data coordinators, surgeons, pathologists, and those developing promising cellular therapies for solid tumors, as well as teams from smaller academic or community cancer center settings. Continued collaboration with stakeholders outside of clinical sites will include accrediting bodies/auditors, established and emerging cell therapy companies, software developers, professional societies, and the patients who receive these therapies. Active dialog with government regulators remains essential. Such joint efforts are critical as the number of IEC therapies for myriad oncologic and nononcologic indications grows.

Tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy treatment and discontinuation in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase in the United States: a clinical practice perspective.

Tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy discontinuation practice in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia chronic phase (CML-CP) was assessed in real-world practice prior to the release of recommendations on discontinuation. Data were collected from US oncologists/hematologists (through web-based physician survey and patient chart review) on TKI therapy discontinuation practice including monitoring, adequate response for discontinuation, relapse, and symptoms following discontinuation. From the physician survey, 34% of oncologists/hematologists attempted discontinuation, with two-thirds doing so outside of a trial. From the chart review, TKI therapy was discontinued in 3.4% of patients after they achieved an adequate response with the intention to remain CML-therapy-free until disease relapse. Among these patients, 21% relapsed and 17% had symptoms following discontinuation. There was a lack of consensus on the definition of adequate response suggesting that discontinuation was attempted without clear guidelines and under suboptimal conditions underscoring the need for physician education regarding guidelines for TKI therapy discontinuation.

Burden of Infections Among Chronic Myeloid Leukemia Patients Receiving Dasatinib or Nilotinib: A Real-World Retrospective Healthcare Claims Study in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) have been demonstrated to prolong survival in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). However, TKIs may be associated with an increased risk of infections. This study compared healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs among patients with CML receiving dasatinib or nilotinib, with a focus on infection-related economic outcomes. METHODS: Two large administrative databases were used to identify adult patients newly diagnosed with CML who initiated dasatinib or nilotinib as first- (1L) or second-line (2L) therapy and were classified into the following 1L (dasatinib 1L/nilotinib 1L cohorts) or 2L (dasatinib 2L/nilotinib 2L) cohorts based on the initiated 1L/2L TKI therapy. Infection-related HRU and healthcare costs were compared between cohorts, separately for 1L and 2L. RESULTS: Cohorts included 1156 patients in the dasatinib 1L and 677 patients in the nilotinib 1L cohorts, 322 patients in the dasatinib 2L, and 207 in the nilotinib 2L cohorts. In 1L and 2L, infection-related HRU was higher for dasatinib than nilotinib cohorts. Infection-related inpatient (IP) days constituted a larger proportion of all-cause IP days in the 1L/2L dasatinib than 1L/2L nilotinib cohorts (dasatinib 1L/2L: 53%/58%; nilotinib 1L/2L: 50%/46%). Compared to the nilotinib cohort, the dasatinib cohort had higher all-cause total costs per patient per year by US$17,901 in 1L and $28,625 in 2L. Of the total cost difference, infection-related were $6048 (34%) in 1L and $28,192 (99%) in 2L, largely driven by IP cost differences (1L/2L: 96%/98%). CONCLUSIONS: Dasatinib was associated with higher HRU and healthcare costs compared to nilotinib, particularly related to infections. FUNDING: Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation.