Outcomes of Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation after Inotuzumab Ozogamicin Treatment for Relapsed or Refractory Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia.

Attaining complete remission of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) before hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) correlates with better post-transplant outcomes. Inotuzumab ozogamicin (InO), an anti-CD22 antibody conjugated to calicheamicin, has shown significantly higher rates of remission, minimal residual disease negativity, and HSCT versus standard chemotherapy in treating relapsed/refractory (R/R) ALL. We investigated the role of previous transplant and proceeding directly to HSCT after remission as factors in determining post-transplant survival in the setting of InO treatment for R/R ALL. The analyzed population comprised InO-treated patients who proceeded to allogeneic HSCT in 2 clinical trials (phase 1/2: NCT01363297 and phase 3: NCT01564784). Overall survival (OS) was defined as time from HSCT to death (any cause). Of 236 InO-treated patients, 101 (43%) proceeded to allogeneic HSCT and were included in this analysis. Most received InO as first salvage (62%); 85% had no previous HSCT. Median (95% confidence interval [CI]) post-transplant OS was 9.2 months (5.1, not evaluable) with 2-year survival probability (95% CI) of 41% (32% to 51%). In first-HSCT patients (n = 86), median (95% CI) post-transplant OS was 11.8 months (5.9, not evaluable) with 2-year survival probability (95% CI) of 46% (35% to 56%); some patients relapsed and needed additional treatment before HSCT (n = 28). Those who went directly to first HSCT upon remission with no additional salvage/induction treatment (n = 73) fared best: median post-transplant OS was not reached with a 2-year survival probability (95% CI) of 51% (39% to 62%). In patients with R/R ALL, InO followed by allogeneic HSCT provided an optimal long-term survival benefit among those with no previous HSCT who went directly to transplant after remission.

Novel Treatments for Pediatric Relapsed or Refractory Acute B-Cell Lineage Lymphoblastic Leukemia: Precision Medicine Era.

With the markedly increased cure rate for children with newly diagnosed pediatric B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL), relapse and refractory B-ALL (R/R B-ALL) remain the primary cause of death worldwide due to the limitations of multidrug chemotherapy. As we now have a more profound understanding of R/R ALL, including the mechanism of recurrence and drug resistance, prognostic indicators, genotypic changes and so on, we can use newly emerging technologies to identify operational molecular targets and find sensitive drugs for individualized treatment. In addition, more promising and innovative immunotherapies and molecular targeted drugs that are expected to kill leukemic cells more effectively while maintaining low toxicity to achieve minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity and better bridge hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) have also been widely developed. To date, the prognosis of pediatric patients with R/R B-ALL has been enhanced markedly thanks to the development of novel drugs. This article reviews the new advancements of several promising strategies for pediatric R/R B-ALL.

Cost-Effectiveness of KTE-X19 for Adults with Relapsed/Refractory B-Cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Despite currently available treatments for adults with relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia (R/R ALL), survival outcomes remain poor, highlighting the need for new therapeutic strategies. This study estimates the cost-effectiveness of KTE-X19 to treat adults with R/R ALL from a US payer perspective. METHODS: The model had two components: a decision-tree, where pre-infusion costs for patients who ultimately did not receive KTE-X19 are accounted for, followed by a partitioned survival analysis, where all KTE-X19 infused patients would enter the three-state (pre-progression, progressed disease, death) model. Comparators included current standard of care treatments, i.e., blinatumomab (BLIN), inotuzumab ozogamicin (INO), and salvage chemotherapy (CHEMO). Both standard parametric and mixture cure models were used to model survival. Efficacy, safety, healthcare resource utilization, and health state utility inputs were derived from the ZUMA-3 trial (NCT02614066) and literature. Cost inputs were derived from literature or publicly available sources. Outcomes and costs were discounted 3% annually. Results of KTE-X19 versus comparators are reported as total and incremental life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) and key scenario analyses were also performed. RESULTS: In the base case, incremental QALYs for KTE-X19 were 2.44, 3.26, and 4.61 versus BLIN, INO, and CHEMO, respectively. Incremental costs were $50,913, $251,532, and $432,027, respectively, resulting in ICERs of $20,843/QALY (versus BLIN), $77,271/QALY (versus INO), and $93,768/QALY (versus CHEMO). Deterministic sensitivity analysis results were most sensitive to subsequent allogeneic stem cell transplant rates and post-progression utilities. PSA found that KTE-X19 is 78.4%, 74.0%, and 75.4% likely to be cost-effective versus BLIN, INO, and CHEMO, respectively. Across most scenarios, at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY, KTE-X19 was cost-effective versus all treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to current options for adults with R/R ALL, KTE-X19 is cost-effective, driven primarily by improved survival.

Several treatments for adults with relapsed/refractory B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (R/R B-ALL) have been approved in the past decade in the US, including blinatumomab (BLIN) and inotuzumab ozogamicin (INO). However, despite the high costs associated with these treatments, survival for patients remains poor. KTE-X19, an autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy, approved by the Food and Drug Administration in October 2021, has potential to improve survival, but its economic value has not yet been determined. This model comprehensively evaluated the long-term clinical and economic value of KTE-X19 versus current treatments, including BLIN, INO, and salvage chemotherapy (CHEMO). Inputs were derived from key clinical trials, the literature, and other publicly available sources. The model used the perspective of a US third party payer over a patient lifetime. Compared to BLIN, INO and CHEMO, KTE-X19 resulted in improved quality of life as measured with incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of 2.44 (vs BLIN), 3.26 (vs INO), and 4.61 (vs CHEMO). Treatment with KTE-X19 had incremental costs of $50,913 (vs BLIN), $251,532 (vs INO), and $432,027 (vs CHEMO). KTE-X19 was found to provide good value for money based on incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $20,843/QALY (vs BLIN), $77,271/QALY (vs INO), and $93,768/QALY (vs CHEMO). These values are well below the commonly accepted thresholds to determine economic value. Results were also found to be robust across sensitivity and scenario analyses.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Tisagenlecleucel for the Treatment of Pediatric and Young Adult Patients with Relapsed or Refractory B Cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia in Japan.

Until recently, treatment options were relatively limited for children and young adults with relapsed or refractory (r/r) acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Tisagenlecleucel is a chimeric antigen receptor T cell (CAR-T) immunotherapy with promising efficacy and manageable safety that was approved in Japan in 2019 for the treatment of CD19-positive r/r B cell ALL (B-ALL). However, there is no publication assessing the cost-effectiveness of CAR-T in Japan. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of a tisagenlecleucel treatment strategy compared to a blinatumomab treatment strategy and a clofarabine combination treatment strategy (i.e., clofarabine + cyclophosphamide + etoposide) in Japan for pediatric and young adult patients up to 25 years of age with r/r B-ALL. A partitioned survival model with a lifetime horizon and monthly cycle was constructed from a Japanese public healthcare payer's perspective. Patients were distributed across the following partitioned health states: event-free survival (EFS), progressive disease, and death, which were informed by the EFS and overall survival (OS) data of respective clinical trials before year 5. For the tisagenlecleucel arm, a decision-tree structure was used to partition patients based on the infusion status; those who discontinued prior to receiving infusion were assigned efficacy and cost inputs of blinatumomab and those who received infusion were assigned efficacy and costs inputs based on tisagenlecleucel-infused patients. As trial data for blinatumomab and clofarabine ended before year 5, matching-adjusted indirect comparisons were used to extrapolate OS between the end of trial observation and up to year 5. All surviving patients followed the mortality risk of long-term ALL survivors without additional risk of disease relapse after year 5, regardless of initial treatment strategies. The model accounted for pretreatment costs, treatment costs, adverse event costs, follow-up costs, subsequent allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation costs, and terminal care costs. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per life-years (LYs) gained and ICERs per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained were evaluated using a 2% discount rate, and a threshold of ¥7.5 million was used to assess cost-effectiveness. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. The total LYs (discounted) for tisagenlecleucel, blinatumomab, and clofarabine combination treatment strategies were 13.3, 4.0, and 2.7 years, respectively; the corresponding QALYs were 11.6, 3.1, and 2.1 years, respectively. The ICERs per QALY gained for tisagenlecleucel were ¥2,035,071 versus blinatumomab and ¥2,644,702 versus clofarabine combination therapy. Extensive sensitivity analyses supported the findings. Tisagenlecleucel is a cost-effective treatment strategy for pediatric and young adult patients with r/r B-ALL from a Japanese public healthcare payer's perspective.

Indirect Treatment Comparison of Inotuzumab Ozogamicin Versus Blinatumomab for Relapsed or Refractory Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia.

INTRODUCTION: No head-to-head studies have compared inotuzumab ozogamicin (InO) and blinatumomab (Blina) for the treatment of adults with relapsed or refractory B cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs), namely network meta-analysis (NMA), anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC), and simulated treatment comparison (STC), were conducted to compare the relative efficacy of these therapies. METHODS: Patient-level data from a study that evaluated InO with standard of care (SoC) chemotherapy (INO-VATE-ALL) and published data from a study that evaluated Blina with SoC chemotherapy (TOWER) were used in the analyses. Endpoints evaluated included remission rate defined as complete remission or complete remission with incomplete hematologic recovery (CR/CRi), hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), overall survival (OS), and event-free survival (EFS). For each outcome, treatment-effect modifiers were adjusted for in the anchored MAIC and STC analyses. RESULTS: Analyses showed statistically significant higher rates of remission and HSCT with InO compared to Blina irrespective of the ITC method used or measure of the effect (i.e., odds ratio [OR] or rate difference). The treatment effects derived from the MAIC and STC analyses were consistent and stronger than those estimated from the NMA. A trend favoring InO was detected for EFS. The ITC results for OS suggest no difference between InO and Blina. CONCLUSION: Results from these ITCs indicated a statistically significant advantage for InO over Blina for rates of remission and HSCT in adults with relapsed or refractory B cell precursor ALL. It was not possible to fully adjust for all treatment-effect modifiers, and the similarity in chemotherapy regimens used in the SoC comparator arms of the INO-VATE-ALL and TOWER studies is worthy of further exploration. Both studies, however, used chemotherapy regimens that have a low response rate; therefore, no significant differences in efficacy outcomes are expected between SoC arms. FUNDING: Pfizer Inc, New York, NY. Plain language summary available for this article.

Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of Blinatumomab vs. Inotuzumab Ozogamicin for Adults with Relapsed/Refractory Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia.

INTRODUCTION: In the absence of head-to-head trials, this analysis aimed to provide a fair indirect comparison of the efficacy between blinatumomab and inotuzumab ozogamicin (InO), two treatments for adult patients with relapsed or refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia (R/R ALL) who received no more than one prior salvage therapy, by adjusting for cross-trial differences. METHODS: Patient-level data from the Phase 3 blinatumomab trial TOWER and published aggregated data from the Phase 3 InO trial INO-VATE-ALL were used to conduct matching-adjusted indirect comparisons. Patients with 2+ prior salvage therapies from TOWER were excluded because such patients were not included in INO-VATE-ALL. To ensure balance in the remaining patients, baseline characteristics for the TOWER patients were weighted to match the average baseline characteristics in INO-VATE-ALL, including sex, age, race, performance status, bone marrow blast, previous salvage therapy, previous allogeneic transplantation, complete remission with complete hematologic recovery (CR) to most recent induction therapy, and duration of first remission. Overall survival (OS), including median and restricted mean survival time (RMST) at 12 and 20.7 months, and CR were estimated and compared. RESULTS: A total of 310 patients in TOWER were included (blinatumomab, n = 203; standard of care chemotherapy, n = 107). After matching the listed baseline characteristics, the median OS was 9.3 months for blinatumomab and 7.7 months for InO (weighted log-rank test p = 0.4). The relative RMST at 12 months was 1.6 months longer for blinatumomab than for InO [95% CI (0.1, 3.2); p = 0.04]; at 20.7 months the RMST was not significantly different. The CR rates were similar [anchor-based difference = - 2.8%, 95% CI (- 17.5%, 11.9%); p = 0.71]. CONCLUSIONS: After adjusting for cross-trial differences, blinatumomab demonstrated a similar CR rate and potential OS benefit versus InO among adult patients with R/R ALL who received no more than one prior salvage therapy. Further studies are suggested to confirm this finding. FUNDING: Amgen.

Healthcare burden and reimbursement of hospitalization during chemotherapy for adults with Ph-negative relapsed or refractory B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia in France: a retrospective chart review.

OBJECTIVE: Philadelphia chromosome negative [Ph(-)] relapsed or refractory (R/R) B-precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) is an extremely rare condition requiring intensive treatment. This retrospective chart review aimed to quantify hospitalizations and reimbursement in this patient population in France. METHODS: Patients aged ≥18 years and with at least one hospitalization for Ph(-) R/R B-precursor ALL were included in the study. They were relapsed with first remission lasting <12 months, relapsed after first salvage therapy, relapsed any time after hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT), or were refractory to initial or salvage therapy. Data were collected from the index date (first diagnosis of R/R ALL) until death or loss to follow-up. The chemotherapy period was defined as the first chemotherapy date after the index date to the earliest of death, loss to follow-up, last chemotherapy dose plus 30 days, or initiation of HSCT. The primary outcome was the percentage of time hospitalized during the chemotherapy period. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients were included, with a mean age of 49 years. The mean proportion of time spent in the hospital during the chemotherapy period was 46% (95% CI =34-57%). Patients had a mean of 2.2 (SD =1.5) inpatient hospitalizations and the mean length of stay per hospitalization was 16.8 (SD =14.8) days. During the chemotherapy period, the mean amount reimbursed per hospitalization was €31 067 (SD = €4850) and the total hospitalization reimbursement per patient was €68 344. From the index date to death, excluding HSCT, the total reimbursement per patient was €108 873. LIMITATIONS: The sample size was small, although this was expected given the rarity of the patient population. CONCLUSIONS: Adults with Ph(-) R/R B-precursor ALL had repeated and prolonged hospitalizations during salvage chemotherapy. Approximately half the follow-up period was spent in the hospital, and this time was associated with high economic burden in France.