Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell Access in Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Large B-Cell Lymphoma: Association of Access with Social Determinants of Health and Travel Time to Treatment Centers.

Large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) is the most common type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR T) therapy represents a novel treatment with curative potential for relapsed or refractory (R/R) LBCL, but there are access barriers to this innovative therapy that are not well-studied. Study objectives were: (1) Assess the impact of geographic factors and social determinants of health (SDOH) on access to treatment with CAR T in a sample of patients with R/R LBCL and ≥2 prior lines of therapy (LOT). (2) Compare and contrast patient characteristics, SDOH, and travel time between patients with R/R LBCL who received CAR T and those who did not. An observational, nested case-control study of patients with R/R LBCL, ≥2 prior LOT, not in a clinical trial, identified using 100% Medicare Fee-For-Service and national multi-payer claims databases. Patients were linked to near-neighborhood SDOH using 9-digit ZIP-code address. Driving distance and time between residence and nearest CAR T treatment center (TC) was calculated. Patients were stratified based on treatments received upon third LOT initiation (Index Date) or later: (1) received CAR T and (2) did not receive CAR T. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate factors associated with CAR T. 5011 patients met inclusion criteria, with 628 (12.5%) in the CAR T group. Regression models found the likelihood of receiving CAR T decreased with patient age (odds ratio [OR] = .96, P < .001), and males were 29% more likely to receive CAR T (OR = 1.29, P = .02). Likelihood of CAR T increased with Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI; OR = 1.07, P < .001) indicating patients with more comorbidities were more likely to receive CAR T. Black patients were less than half as likely to receive CAR T than White patients (OR = .44, P = .01). Asian patients did not significantly differ from White patients (OR = 1.43, P = .24), and there was a trend for Hispanic patients to have a slightly lower likelihood of CAR T (OR = .50, P = .07). Higher household income was associated with receipt of CAR T, with the lowest income group more than 50% less likely to receive CAR T than the highest (OR = .44, P = .002), and the second lowest income group more than 30% less likely (OR = .68, P = .02). Finally, likelihood of CAR T therapy was reduced when the driving time to the nearest TC was 121 to 240 minutes (reference group: ≤30 minutes; OR = .64, P = .04). Travel times between 31 and 121 or greater than 240 minutes were not significantly different from ≤30 minutes. Payer type was collinear with age and could not be included in the regression analysis, but patients with commercial insurance were 1.5 to 3 times more likely to receive CAR T than other payers on an unadjusted basis. We identified significant disparities in access to CAR T related to demographics and SDOH. Patients who were older, female, low income, or Black were less likely to receive CAR T. The positive association of CCI with CAR T requires further research. Given the promising outcomes of CAR T, there is urgent need to address identified disparities and increase efforts to overcome access barriers.

Hospital healthcare resource utilization and costs for chimeric antigen T-cell therapy and autologous hematopoietic cell transplant in patients with large B-cell lymphoma in the United States.

The efficacy of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy for large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) is well-established. This study, using the Premier PINC AI Healthcare Database, assessed hospital costs and healthcare resource utilization (HRU) between CAR T-cell therapy and autologous hematopoietic cell transplant (AHCT) for 733 LBCL patients from 01/01/2017-04/30/2021 (166 CAR T and 567 AHCT from 37 US hospital systems. CAR T-cell therapy had higher index costs but lower non-pharmacy costs, shorter hospital stays, lower ICU utilization than AHCT. The CAR T-cell cohort also presented fewer preparatory costs and HRU. At a 180-day follow-up, AHCT had lower hospitalization rates and costs. Overall, despite higher index costs, CAR T-cell therapy has lower non-pharmacy costs and HRU during the index procedure and requires less preparation time with lower preparation HRUs and costs than AHCT. This has important implications for resource management and informed decision-making for stakeholders.

Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of Brexucabtagene Autoleucel (ZUMA-2) and Pirtobrutinib (BRUIN) in Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Mantle Cell Lymphoma Previously Treated with a Covalent Bruton Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) often require multiple lines of treatment and have a poor prognosis, particularly after failing covalent Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor (cBTKi) therapy. Newer treatments such as brexucabtagene autoleucel (brexu-cel, chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapy) and pirtobrutinib (non-covalent BTKi) show promise in improving outcomes. METHODS: Without direct comparative evidence, an unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison was conducted to estimate the relative treatment effects of brexu-cel and pirtobrutinib for post-cBTKi R/R MCL. Using logistic propensity score models, individual patient-level data from ZUMA-2 brexu-cel-infused population (N = 68) were weighted to match pre-specified clinically relevant prognostic factors based on study-level data from the BRUIN cBTKi pre-treated cohort (N = 90). The base-case model incorporated the five most pertinent factors reported in ≥ 50% of both trial populations: morphology, MCL International Prognostic Index, number of prior lines of therapy, disease stage, and prior autologous stem cell transplant. A sensitivity analysis additionally incorporated TP53 mutation and Ki-67 proliferation. Relative treatment effects were expressed as odds ratios (ORs) or hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: In the base-case model, brexu-cel was associated with higher rates of objective response (OR 10.39 [95% CI 2.81-38.46]) and complete response (OR 10.11 [95% CI 4.26-24.00]), and improved progression-free survival (HR 0.44 [95% CI 0.25-0.75]), compared to pirtobrutinib. Overall survival and duration of response favored brexu-cel over pirtobrutinib but the differences crossed the bounds for statistical significance. Findings were consistent across the adjusted and unadjusted analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that brexu-cel may offer clinically and statistically significant benefits regarding objective response, complete response, and progression-free survival compared to pirtobrutinib among patients with R/R MCL after prior cBTKi therapy. Given the short follow-up and high degree of censoring in BRUIN, an analysis incorporating updated BRUIN data may provide more definitive overall survival results.

An updated cost-effectiveness analysis of axicabtagene ciloleucel in second-line large B-cell lymphoma patients in the United States.

AIMS: This economic evaluation of axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) versus previous standard of care (SOC; salvage chemotherapy followed by high-dose therapy with autologous stem cell rescue) in the second line (2L) large B-cell lymphoma population is an update of previous economic models that contained immature survival data. METHODS: This analysis is based on primary overall survival (OS) ZUMA-7 clinical trial data (median follow-up of 47.2 months), from a United States (US) payer perspective, with a model time horizon of 50 years. Mixture cure models were used to extrapolate updated survival data; subsequent treatment data and costs were updated. Patients who remained in the event-free survival state by 5 years were assumed to have achieved long-term remission and not require subsequent treatment. RESULTS: Substantial survival and quality of life benefits were observed despite 57% of patients in the SOC arm receiving subsequent cellular therapy: median model-projected (ZUMA-7 trial Kaplan-Meier estimated) OS was 78 months (median not reached) for axi-cel versus 25 months (31 months) for SOC, resulting in incremental quality-adjusted life year (QALY) difference of 1.63 in favor of axi-cel. Incrementally higher subsequent treatment costs were observed in the SOC arm due to substantial crossover to cellular therapies, thus, when considering the generally accepted willingness to pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY in the US, axi-cel was cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $98,040 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Results remained consistent across a wide range of sensitivity and scenario analysis, including a crossover adjusted analysis, suggesting that the mature OS data has significantly reduced the uncertainty of axi-cel's cost-effectiveness in the 2L setting in the US. Deferring treatment with CAR T therapies after attempting a path to transplant may result in excess mortality, lower quality of life and would be an inefficient use of resources relative to 2L axi-cel.

Health Care Resource Utilization and Total Costs of Care for Adult Patients With Relapsed or Refractory Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia in the United States: A Retrospective Claims Analysis.

PURPOSE: Although immunotherapies such as blinatumomab and inotuzumab have led to improved outcomes, financial burden and health resource utilization (HRU) have increased for adult patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (R/R B-ALL). This study assessed real-world HRU and costs of care among adult patients with R/R B-ALL by line of therapy (LoT) in the United States. METHODS: We selected patients from the MarketScanⓇ Database (January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2020) as follows: ≥1 claims of ALL-indicated first-line (1L) therapies, ≥1 diagnosis of ALL before the index date (1L initiation date), 6-month continuous enrollment before the index date, second-line (2L) therapy initiation, ≥18 years old at 2L, no clinical trial enrollment, no diagnosis of other forms of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and no claim for daratumumab or nelarabine during the study period. Outcome measures included claim-based time to next treatment (TTNT), all-cause and adverse event (AE)-related HRU, and all-cause and AE-related costs. FINDINGS: The R/R B-ALL cohort (N = 203) was 60% male, median age of 41 years, and median Charlson Comorbidity Index score of 3.0. Mean (SD) follow-up was 17.8 (11.8) months. Of those who received 2L, 55.7% (113/203) required 3L, and 15% (30/203) initiated 4L+. Patients relapsed quickly, with a median TTNT of 170 days, 169 days, and 205 days for 2L, 3L, and 4L+, respectively. Hospitalization rates were high across each LoT (2L, 88%; 3L, 73%; 4L+, 73%), and the mean (SD) inpatient length of stay increased by LoT as follows: 8.6 (6.8) days for 2L, 10.6 (13.3) for 3L, and 11.6 (13.6) for 4L+. Mean (SD) overall costs were substantial within each LoT at $513,279 ($599,209), $340,419 ($333,555), and $390,327 ($332,068) for 2L, 3L, and 4L+, respectively. The mean (SD) overall/per-patient-per-month AE-related costs were $358,676 ($497,998) for 2L, $202,621 ($272,788) for 3L, and $210,539 ($267,814) for 4L+. Among those receiving blinatumomab or inotuzumab within each LoT, the mean (SD) total costs were $566,373 ($621,179), $498,070 ($376,260), and $512,908 ($159,525) for 2L, 3L, and 4L+, respectively. IMPLICATIONS: These findings suggest that adult patients with R/R B-ALL relapse frequently with standard of care and incur a substantial HRU and cost burden with each LoT. Those treated with blinatumomab or inotuzumab incurred higher total costs within each LoT compared with the overall R/R B-ALL cohort. Alternative therapies with longer duration of remission are urgently needed, and HRU should be considered for future studies examining the optimal sequencing of therapy.

Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparisons of Brexucabtagene Autoleucel with Alternative Standard Therapies for Relapsed/Refractory B-Cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia in Adult Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Brexucabtagene autoleucel (brexu-cel), a CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy, is approved for relapsed/refractory B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia in adults aged 18+/26+ years in the US/European Union (EU), based on efficacy results from the single-arm ZUMA-3 trial. This study aimed to estimate the relative treatment effects of brexu-cel versus inotuzumab ozogamicin (InO), blinatumomab (blina), and chemotherapies using unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) methods. METHODS: Individual patient data from ZUMA-3 and published aggregate level data from two randomized controlled trials, INO-VATE (InO versus chemotherapy) and TOWER (blina versus chemotherapy), were used. Patient-level data from ZUMA-3 were weighted to match the mean of the following prognostic variables at baseline, which were pre-specified based on clinical input, for each comparator population: primary refractory disease, duration of first remission < 12 months, prior stem-cell transplantation, age, performance status, salvage status, bone marrow blast, complex karyotype, and Philadelphia chromosome status. The base case analysis was conducted using the modified intention-to-treat population (i.e., received brexu-cel) from ZUMA-3. Relative treatment effects for overall survival (OS) and event-free survival (EFS) were expressed as hazard ratios (HR) and differences in restricted mean survival time (RMST) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: The base case MAIC results suggested brexu-cel improved OS and EFS compared to blina (OS HR 0.46 [95% CI 0.28, 0.75]; EFS HR 0.37 [95% CI 0.25, 0.56]) and pooled INO-VATE/TOWER chemotherapy (OS HR 0.32 [95% CI 0.18, 0.56]; EFS HR 0.27 [0.18, 0.40]). Brexu-cel also improved OS compared to InO (HR 0.45 [95% CI 0.24, 0.85]). The point estimate for EFS favored brexu-cel over Ino but the difference was not statistically significant (HR 0.67 [95% CI 0.41, 1.10]). Findings were consistent between the HR and RMST analyses. CONCLUSION: Despite limitations, these MAIC results suggest that brexu-cel may improve OS and EFS versus currently used therapies in this population.

Health resource utilization and costs of care for adult patients with relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma in the United States: a retrospective claims analysis.

OBJECTIVES: We assessed real-world healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs among US patients with relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma (R/R MCL) by line of therapy (LoT). METHODS: We selected patients from MarketScan® (1/1/2016-12/31/2020): ≥1 claims of MCL-indicated first line (1L) therapies, ≥1 diagnoses of MCL pre-index date (1L initiation date), ≥6-month continuous enrollment pre-index date, second line (2L) therapy initiation, ≥18 years old at 2L, and no clinical trial enrollment. Outcomes included time to next treatment (TTNT), all-cause HRU, and costs. RESULTS: The cohort (N = 142) was 77.5% male, aged 62 years (median). Sixty-six percent and 23% advanced to 3L and 4L+, respectively. Mean (median) TTNT was 9.7 (5.9), 9.3 (5.0), and 6.3 (4.2) months for 2L, 3L, and 4L+, respectively. Mean (median) per patient per month (PPPM) costs were $29,999 ($21,313), $29,352 ($20,033), and $30,633 ($23,662) for 2L, 3L, and 4L+, respectively. Among those who received Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors, mean (median) PPPM costs were $24,702 ($17,203), $31,801 ($20,363), and $36,710 ($25,899) for 2L, 3L, and 4L+, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: During the period ending in 2020, patients relapsed frequently, incurring high HRU and costs across LoTs. More effective treatments with long-lasting remissions in R/R MCL may reduce healthcare burden.

Mantle cell lymphoma is a rare blood cancer of white blood cells. This type of cancer can be hard to treat, even with new treatments. In about 15% to 20% of people, the cancer will not get better or will come back within 2 years of starting treatment. When this happens, there are few good options for treatments that work. Using medical claims data, we looked at healthcare use and costs among US patients with mantle cell lymphoma that came back after treatment or did not respond to treatment. We found 142 patients who met the study criteria. Of these, 77.5% were men with a median age of 62 years. Sixty-six percent got a third of the treatment and 23% got a fourth treatment or more. The time until the next treatment was about 9­10 months for patients who got a second and third treatments.. It was about 6 months for people who got a fourth or more treatment. The average monthly cost of treatment was about $30,000 for those receiving a second or fourth or more treatment. It was slightly less for those who got a third treatment. For those who got Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitors, the monthly costs went up with each treatment they needed. Overall, we found that during the study period, patients with mantle cell lymphoma worsened quickly, received multiple treatments, and had high costs of care. Better treatments that work longer are needed.

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 of axicabtagene ciloleucel versus lisocabtagene maraleucel for adult patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma after two or more lines of systemic therapy in the US.

AIMS: This study evaluated from a US payer perspective the cost-effectiveness of two chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR T) cell therapies, axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) versus lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel), for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory (r/r) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) following two or more systemic therapy lines. METHODS: We developed a 3-state (i.e., pre-progression, post-progression, death) partitioned survival model to estimate patients' lifetime outcomes. Mixture cure models were used for survival extrapolation to account for long-term remission. Survival inputs were based on a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) that reweighted the ZUMA-1 population (receiving axi-cel) to match patient characteristics in TRANSCEND-NHL-001 (assessing liso-cel). Costs included apheresis, drug acquisition, and administration for conditioning chemotherapy and CAR T therapies, monitoring, transplant, hospitalization, adverse events, routine care, and terminal care, per published literature and databases. Utilities were derived from ZUMA-1 and literature. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: In the base case, axi-cel was associated with more QALYs (7.76 vs. 5.94) and greater costs overall ($611,440 vs. $597,174) than liso-cel, at $7,843/QALY gained. The incremental costs (+$14,266) were largely driven by higher routine care costs (+$18,596) due to longer survival and hospitalization (+$10,993) but partially offset by reduced costs of CAR T acquisition (‒$11,300) and terminal care (‒$4,025). Sensitivity analyses consistently suggested robustness of base-case results. LIMITATIONS: This study relied on an MAIC in which trial design differences and unobserved confounders could not be accounted for. Future real-world studies for recently approved CAR T are warranted to validate our results. Due to a lack of data, we assumed equivalent use of transplants and treatment for B-cell aplasia between the two therapies based on clinicians' opinions. CONCLUSIONS: In the US, axi-cel is a potentially cost-effective treatment option compared with liso-cel for adult patients with r/r LBCL after two or more systemic therapy lines.

KTE-X19 for relapsed or refractory adult B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia: phase 2 results of the single-arm, open-label, multicentre ZUMA-3 study.

BACKGROUND: Despite treatment with novel therapies and allogeneic stem-cell transplant (allo-SCT) consolidation, outcomes in adult patients with relapsed or refractory B-precursor acute lymphoblastic leukaemia remain poor, underlining the need for more effective therapies. METHODS: We report the pivotal phase 2 results of ZUMA-3, an international, multicentre, single-arm, open-label study evaluating the efficacy and safety of the autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy KTE-X19 in adult patients with relapsed or refractory B-precursor acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. Patients were enrolled at 25 sites in the USA, Canada, and Europe. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, and morphological disease in the bone marrow (>5% blasts). After leukapheresis and conditioning chemotherapy, patients received a single KTE-X19 infusion (1 × 106 CAR T cells per kg bodyweight). The primary endpoint was the rate of overall complete remission or complete remission with incomplete haematological recovery by central assessment. Duration of remission and relapse-free survival, overall survival, minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity rate, and allo-SCT rate were assessed as secondary endpoints. Efficacy and safety analyses were done in the treated population (all patients who received a dose of KTE-X19). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02614066. FINDINGS: Between Oct 1, 2018, and Oct 9, 2019, 71 patients were enrolled and underwent leukapheresis. KTE-X19 was successfully manufactured for 65 (92%) patients and administered to 55 (77%). The median age of treated patients was 40 years (IQR 28-52). At the median follow-up of 16·4 months (13·8-19·6), 39 patients (71%; 95% CI 57-82, p<0·0001) had complete remission or complete remission with incomplete haematological recovery, with 31 (56%) patients reaching complete remission. Median duration of remission was 12·8 months (95% CI 8·7-not estimable), median relapse-free survival was 11·6 months (2·7-15·5), and median overall survival was 18·2 months (15·9-not estimable). Among responders, the median overall survival was not reached, and 38 (97%) patients had MRD negativity. Ten (18%) patients received allo-SCT consolidation after KTE-X19 infusion. The most common adverse events of grade 3 or higher were anaemia (27 [49%] patients) and pyrexia (20 [36%] patients). 14 (25%) patients had infections of grade 3 or higher. Two grade 5 KTE-X19-related events occurred (brain herniation and septic shock). Cytokine release syndrome of grade 3 or higher occurred in 13 (24%) patients and neurological events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 14 (25%) patients. INTERPRETATION: KTE-X19 showed a high rate of complete remission or complete remission with incomplete haematological recovery in adult patients with relapsed or refractory B-precursor acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, with the median overall survival not reached in responding patients, and a manageable safety profile. These findings indicate that KTE-X19 has the potential to confer long-term clinical benefit to these patients. FUNDING: Kite, a Gilead Company.

Length of stay, mortality, and readmissions among Medicare cancer patients treated with glucarpidase and conventional care: a retrospective study.

PURPOSE: Glucarpidase (Voraxaze) is used to treat methotrexate (Mtx) toxicity in patients with delayed Mtx clearance due to impaired renal function. We examine hospital length of stay (LOS), mortality, and readmission rates for Medicare cancer patients with delayed clearance of Mtx treated with glucarpidase. METHODS: Using 2010-2017 Medicare claims data, we identified glucarpidase patients as those hospitalized with indications of select lymphomas or leukemia, inpatient chemotherapy, and glucarpidase treatment. We assessed outcomes of glucarpidase patients relative to those experienced by patients treated for presumed Mtx toxicity using other therapies. These nonglucarpidase patients were identified with a diagnosis of primary central nervous system lymphoma, indications of cancer-chemotherapy toxicity, and acute kidney injury during hospitalization (not present on admission), and were divided into two groups: treated with dialysis (dialysis+) and treated with or without dialysis (dialysis+/-). Inverse-probability treatment weighting using propensity scores was used to adjust for differences between groups. RESULTS: Patients treated with glucarpidase (n=30) had an average LOS of 14.7 days. They had inpatient, 30-day, and 90-day mortality rates of 3.3%, 13.3%, and 16.7%, respectively, and a 90-day all-cause unplanned readmission rate of 24.1%. The dialysis+ and dialysis+/- groups, respectively, had higher average LOS (40.2, 21.9), higher inpatient mortality (50.6%, 20.8%), and higher 90-day mortality (58.6%, 37.6%). No statistically significant differences in 30-day mortality or 90-day readmission rates were detected between the glucarpidase group and either of the nonglucarpidase groups. Unobservable differences in patient severity may impact the interpretation of our findings. CONCLUSION: Medicare cancer patients with presumed Mtx toxicity receiving conventional treatment experience long hospitalizations, high intensive-care unit use and high mortality. Glucarpidase patients had lower LOS, inpatient mortality, and 90-day mortality than the non-glucarpidase patients.

The Effects of Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty on Medicare Spending and Beneficiary Outcomes: Implications for the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement Model.

BACKGROUND: After the first year in the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model, hospitals must repay Medicare for spending above a target price. Hospitals are incentivized to reduce spending in a 90-day episode and generate internal cost savings through, for example, the use of lower-cost implants. METHODS: We used a Markov model to compare quality-adjusted life-years and lifetime costs of total hip arthroplasty, under Medicare fee-for-service (baseline) and under alternative revision rate assumptions (prospective CJR scenarios). Results were generated for 65-year-old and 75-year-old male and female Medicare beneficiaries using baseline spending and revision rates from Medicare claims. We estimated the impact of CJR on 90-day spending. We ran sensitivity analyses for revision rates. RESULTS: Under willingness-to-pay thresholds of $50,000, $100,000, and $150,000, the baseline scenario was more cost-effective than the CJR scenario for a 65-year-old male patient if the revision risk increases by at least 7% (95% confidence interval for CJR savings: 4%-22%), 5% (range, 3%-7%), or 3% (range, 1%-5%), respectively. For males aged 75 years and females, revision risk needs to increase by a greater percentage under CJR relative to baseline for Medicare fee-for-service to be more cost-effective. CONCLUSION: The CJR model holds great promise. However, it incentivizes hospitals to choose lower-cost implants and adopt newer technology more slowly, which could potentially increase revision rates and offset benefits of the program. Policy makers should monitor revision rates and consider changes to the CJR model to ensure beneficiary access to valuable technology.

Associations between Obesity and Spinal Diseases: A Medical Expenditure Panel Study Analysis.

Background: The link between body weight status and spinal diseases has been suggested by a number of cross-sectional and cohort studies with a limited range of patient populations. No population-representative samples have been used to examine the link between obesity and spinal diseases. The present study is based on a nationally representative sample drawn from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. Methods: Using the cross-sectional sample of the 2014 Medical Expenditure Panel Study, we built four weighted logistic regression analyses of the associations between body weight status and the following four spinal diseases: low back pain, spondylosis, other cervical disorders and intervertebral disc disorder (IDD). Each respondent's body weight status was used as the key independent variable with three categories: normal/underweight, overweight, and obese. We controlled for marital status, gender, age, smoking status, household income, health insurance coverage, educational attainment and the use of health services for other major categories of diseases. Results: A total sample of 23,048 respondents was used in our analysis. Overweight and obese respondents, as compared to normal/underweight respondents, were more likely to develop lower back problems (Overweight: logged odds = 0.218, p < 0.01; Obese: logged odds = 0.395, p < 0.001) and IDD (Overweight: logged odds = 0.441, p < 0.05; Obese: logged odds = 0.528, p < 0.001). The associations between bodyweight status and spondylitis were statistically insignificant (Overweight: logged odds = 0.281, p = 0.442; Obese: logged odds = 0.680, p = 0.104). The associations between body weight status and other cervical disorders (Overweight: logged odds = -0.116, p = 0.304; Obese: logged odds = -0.160, p = 0.865) were statistically insignificant. Conclusions: As the first study using a national sample to study bodyweight and spinal diseases, our paper supports the hypothesis that obesity adds to the burden of low back pain and IDD. Longitudinal and interventional studies are needed to understand the specific mechanisms behind these positive associations.

Estimating the Societal Benefits of THA After Accounting for Work Status and Productivity: A Markov Model Approach.

BACKGROUND: Demand for total hip arthroplasty (THA) is high and expected to continue to grow during the next decade. Although much of this growth includes working-aged patients, cost-effectiveness studies on THA have not fully incorporated the productivity effects from surgery. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We asked: (1) What is the expected effect of THA on patients' employment and earnings? (2) How does accounting for these effects influence the cost-effectiveness of THA relative to nonsurgical treatment? METHODS: Taking a societal perspective, we used a Markov model to assess the overall cost-effectiveness of THA compared with nonsurgical treatment. We estimated direct medical costs using Medicare claims data and indirect costs (employment status and worker earnings) using regression models and nonparametric simulations. For direct costs, we estimated average spending 1 year before and after surgery. Spending estimates included physician and related services, hospital inpatient and outpatient care, and postacute care. For indirect costs, we estimated the relationship between functional status and productivity, using data from the National Health Interview Survey and regression analysis. Using regression coefficients and patient survey data, we ran a nonparametric simulation to estimate productivity (probability of working multiplied by earnings if working minus the value of missed work days) before and after THA. We used the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry to obtain revision rates because it contained osteoarthritis-specific THA revision rates by age and gender, which were unavailable in other registry reports. Other model assumptions were extracted from a previously published cost-effectiveness analysis that included a comprehensive literature review. We incorporated all parameter estimates into Markov models to assess THA effects on quality-adjusted life years and lifetime costs. We conducted threshold and sensitivity analyses on direct costs, indirect costs, and revision rates to assess the robustness of our Markov model results. RESULTS: Compared with nonsurgical treatments, THA increased average annual productivity of patients by USD 9503 (95% CI, USD 1446-USD 17,812). We found that THA increases average lifetime direct costs by USD 30,365, which were offset by USD 63,314 in lifetime savings from increased productivity. With net societal savings of USD 32,948 per patient, total lifetime societal savings were estimated at almost USD 10 billion from more than 300,000 THAs performed in the United States each year. CONCLUSIONS: Using a Markov model approach, we show that THA produces societal benefits that can offset the costs of THA. When comparing THA with other nonsurgical treatments, policymakers should consider the long-term benefits associated with increased productivity from surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, economic and decision analysis.