Cost-effectiveness of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy in adults with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma.

Follicular lymphoma (FL) is traditionally considered treatable but incurable. In March 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration approved the use of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy in patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) FL after ≥2 lines of therapy. Priced at $373 000, CAR T-cell therapy is potentially curative, and its cost-effectiveness compared with other modern R/R FL treatment strategies is unknown. We developed a Markov model to assess the cost-effectiveness of third-line CAR T-cell vs standard of care (SOC) therapies in adults with R/R FL. We estimated progression rates for patients receiving CAR T-cell and SOC therapies from the ZUMA-5 trial and the LEO CReWE study, respectively. We calculated costs, discounted life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of CAR T-cell vs SOC therapies with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY. Our analysis was conducted from a US payer's perspective over a lifetime horizon. In our base-case model, the cost of the CAR T-cell strategy was $731 682 compared with $458 490 for SOC therapies. However, CAR T-cell therapy was associated with incremental clinical benefit of 1.50 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of $182 127 per QALY. Our model was most sensitive to the utilities associated with CAR T-cell therapy remission and third-line SOC therapies and to the total upfront CAR T-cell therapy cost. Under current pricing, CAR T-cell therapy is unlikely to be cost-effective in unselected patients with FL in the third-line setting. Both randomized clinical trials and longer term clinical follow-up can help clarify the benefits of CAR T-cell therapy and optimal sequencing in patients with FL.

Mitigating the risk of COVID-19 exposure by transitioning from clinic-based to home-based immune globulin infusion.

PURPOSE: Intravenous immune globulin (IVIG) therapy is used in patients with hypogammaglobulinemia to lower the risk of infections. IVIG and subcutaneous IVIG (SCIG) therapy have been to shown to be safe and effective when administered as clinic-based infusions. Concern from both patients and providers for increased transmission of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) virus to immunosuppressed patients with scheduled medical visits and procedures made it necessary for us to reassess our process of how we manage patient care in general and chronic clinic infusions in particular. Here we describe our experience of transitioning patients from clinic-based to home based IVIG and/or SCIG infusions to decrease the risk of COVID-19 exposure. METHODS: Criteria were developed to identify high-risk immunosuppressed patients who would be appropriate candidates for potential conversion to home based IVIG infusions. Data were collected via chart review, and cost analysis was performed using Medicare Part B reimbursement data. A patient outcome questionnaire was developed for administration through follow-up phone calls. RESULTS: From March to May 2020, 45 patients met criteria for home-based infusion, with 27 patients (60%) agreeing to home-based infusion. Posttransition patient outcomes assessment, conducted in 26 patients (96%), demonstrated good patient understanding of the home-based infusion process. No infusion-related complications were reported, and 24 patients (92%) had no concerns about receiving future IVIG and/or SCIG doses at home. No patient tested positive for COVID-19 during the study period. Clinic infusion visits decreased by 26.6 visits per month, resulting in a total of 106 hours of additional available infusion chair time per month and associated cost savings of $12,877. CONCLUSION: Transition of clinic based to home based IVIG/SCIG infusion can be successfully done to decrease potential exposure during a pandemic in a high-risk immunosuppressed population, with no impact on patient satisfaction, adherence, or efficacy. The home-based infusion initiative was associated with a reduction in costs to patients and an increase in available chair time in the infusion clinic.

Cost-effectiveness of polatuzumab vedotin in relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

A recent phase II trial showed that use of polatuzumab vedotin in combination with bendamustine plus rituximab (Pola-BR) in transplant-ineligible patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) resulted in longer progression-free survival and overall survival compared to bendamustine plus rituximab (BR) alone. In this study, we constructed a Markov model to assess the cost-effectiveness of Pola-BR versus BR in transplant-ineligible R/R DLBCL. We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of each treatment strategy from a US payer perspective, using a lifetime horizon and a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Use of Pola-BR was associated with an incremental cost of $92,641 compared to BR alone ($200,905 vs $108,265, respectively), an incremental effectiveness of 1.76 QALYs (2.35 vs 0.59 QALYs, respectively), and an ICER of $52,519/QALY. These data suggest that use of Pola-BR for R/R DLBCL is likely to be cost-effective compared to BR alone.

Cost-effectiveness of first-line vs third-line ibrutinib in patients with untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

The ALLIANCE A041202 trial found that continuously administered ibrutinib in the first-line setting significantly prolonged progression-free survival compared with a fixed-duration treatment of rituximab and bendamustine in older adults with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). In this study, we created a Markov model to assess the cost-effectiveness of ibrutinib in the first-line setting, compared with a strategy of using ibrutinib in the third-line after failure of time-limited bendamustine and venetoclax-based regimens. We estimated transition probabilities from randomized trials using parametric survival modeling. Lifetime direct health care costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated from a US payer perspective. First-line ibrutinib was associated with an improvement of 0.26 QALYs and 0.40 life-years compared with using ibrutinib in the third-line setting. However, using ibrutinib in the first-line led to significantly higher health care costs (incremental cost of $612 700), resulting in an ICER of $2 350 041 per QALY. The monthly cost of ibrutinib would need to be decreased by 72% for first-line ibrutinib therapy to be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY. In a scenario analysis where ibrutinib was used in the second-line in the delayed ibrutinib arm, first-line ibrutinib had an incremental cost of $478 823, an incremental effectiveness of 0.05 QALYs, and an ICER of $9 810 360 per QALY when compared with second-line use. These data suggest that first-line ibrutinib for unselected older adults with CLL is unlikely to be cost-effective under current pricing. Delaying ibrutinib for most patients with CLL until later lines of therapy may be a reasonable strategy to limit health care costs without compromising clinical outcomes.

The impact of a multimodal approach to vancomycin discontinuation in hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients (HSCT) with febrile neutropenia (FN).

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend adding vancomycin to empiric treatment of FN in patients who meet specific criteria. After 48 hours, the guidelines recommend discontinuing vancomycin if resistant Gram-positive organisms are not identified. Based on these recommendations, a vancomycin stewardship team defined criteria for discontinuation of vancomycin at 48 hours and increased surveillance of vancomycin usage through a multimodal approach. The purpose of this retrospective analysis is to assess the impact of this multimodal approach on the discontinuation of empiric vancomycin at 48 hours in FN. METHODS: This retrospective analysis included a pre- and post-intervention cohort of 200 HSCT recipients with FN from 2015 to 2018. Criteria for continued vancomycin use beyond 48 hours included culture-documented resistant Gram-positive infection, positive Methicillin-Resistant S aureus (MRSA) nasal swab with evidence of pneumonia, or hemodynamic instability with concern for sepsis. The following patient characteristics were collected: previous MRSA infection, MRSA nasal swab collection and results, culture results, duration of vancomycin use, rationale for continuation of vancomycin beyond 48 hours, and re-initiation of vancomycin. RESULTS: In the post-intervention cohort, vancomycin discontinuation at 48 hours increased from 31% (95% CI 21.94-40.05) to 70% (95% CI 61.02-78.97; P < 0.0001). An additional 23% of vancomycin orders were discontinued at 72 hours. Off criteria vancomycin use decreased from 33% in pre to 1% in the post-implementation cohort. CONCLUSION: Establishing define criteria for vancomycin use in FN patients with a multimodal approach of physicians from hematology and infectious diseases, clinical pharmacists and the antibiotic stewardship team significantly improved vancomycin discontinuation.