Process, resource and success factors associated with chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy for multiple myeloma.

Background: Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy represents a new frontier in multiple myeloma. It is important to understand critical success factors (CSFs) that may optimize its use in this therapeutic area. Methods: We estimated the CAR-T process using time-driven activity-based costing. Information was obtained through interviews at four US oncology centers and with payer representatives, and through publicly available data. Results: The CAR-T process comprises 13 steps which take 177 days; it was estimated to include 46 professionals and ten care settings. CSFs included proactive collaboration, streamlined reimbursement and CAR-T administration in alternative settings when possible. Implementing CSFs may reduce episode time and costs by 14.4 and 13.2%, respectively. Conclusion: Our research provides a blueprint for improving efficiencies in CAR-T therapy, thereby increasing its sustainability for multiple myeloma.

Patients with multiple myeloma can now be treated with chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy. We studied how CAR-T therapy is used for multiple myeloma. We also studied things that could help make this therapy easier for doctors to use. The CAR-T process takes 13 steps and 177 days. It begins with the choice to use the therapy and ends about 100 days after it is used. The process uses 46 different healthcare professionals and ten different locations. We found several possible changes that can improve this process. Of these changes, three stand out. First, improved teamwork between members of the care team can help them prepare for and resolve possible problems. Second, reducing insurance red tape will make it easier to provide CAR-T therapy to patients. Third, allowing use of CAR-T therapy in places other than hospitals can help more patients receive this therapy. If applied, these three things may lower the time needed to treat patients by 14.4% and may reduce costs by 13.2%.

Updated results from a matching-adjusted indirect comparison of efficacy outcomes for ciltacabtagene autoleucel in CARTITUDE-1 versus idecabtagene vicleucel in KarMMa for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

OBJECTIVE: This study used the latest available data cuts from the CARTITUDE-1 and KarMMa clinical trials to update previously published matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparisons (MAICs) assessing the comparative efficacy of ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) versus the FDA-approved idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) dose range of 300 to 450 × 106 CAR-positive T-cells in the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who were previously treated with a proteasome inhibitor, an immunomodulatory drug, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody (i.e. triple-class exposed). METHODS: MAICs were performed with the latest available individual patient data for cilta-cel (CARTITUDE-1) and published summary-level data for ide-cel (KarMMa). The analyses included treated patients from CARTITUDE-1 who satisfied the eligibility criteria for KarMMa. The MAIC adjusted for unbalanced baseline covariates of prognostic significance identified in the literature and by clinical expertise. Comparative efficacy was assessed for overall response rate (ORR), complete response or better (≥CR) rate, duration of response (DoR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Cilta-cel was associated with statistically significantly improved ORR (odds ratio [OR]: 94.93 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 21.86, 412.25; p < .0001]; relative risk [RR]: 1.34), ≥CR rate (OR: 5.65 [95% CI: 2.51, 12.69; p < .0001]; RR: 2.23), DoR (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.52 [95% CI: 0.30, 0.88; p = .0152]), PFS, (HR: 0.38 [95% CI: 0.24, 0.62; p < .0001]), and OS (HR: 0.43 [95% CI: 0.22, 0.88; p = .0200]) compared with ide-cel. CONCLUSIONS: These analyses demonstrate improved efficacy with cilta-cel versus ide-cel for all outcomes over longer follow-up and highlight its therapeutic potential in triple-class exposed RRMM patients.

Healthcare Costs of Multiple Myeloma Patients with Four or More Prior Lines of Therapy, Including Triple-Class Exposure in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: The treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) remains a challenge as patients eventually progress through several lines of therapy (LOTs), requiring use of multiple MM drug classes. In this retrospective US claims-database study, we examined the healthcare costs of patients with MM who received ≥ 4 prior LOTs, including triple-class exposure (TCE). METHODS: Adult patients with MM were selected from the IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare claims databases (1 January 2012-30 June 2021). Eligible patients were required to have received at least four prior LOTs, and TCE (i.e., received a proteasome inhibitor, immunomodulatory drug, and anti-CD38-targeted monoclonal antibody) after the first-observed diagnosis of MM. The index date was defined as the initiation date of the first subsequent LOT after meeting the eligibility criteria for the study, and this date had to be after 1 January 2017 to capture contemporary cost estimates. The primary outcome measurements were all-cause and MM-related healthcare costs after the index date. RESULTS: The study population included 68 patients with MM (63% men), with a mean age of 59.8 years. Mean duration from first-observed MM diagnosis until index date averaged 46.7 months. During a mean follow-up of 21.9 months, total all-cause healthcare costs averaged US$757,386 per patient (equivalent to US$34,610 per patient per month). MM-related healthcare costs (US$670,561 per patient) contributed on average 88.5% to the total all-cause healthcare costs; the majority (67.2%) of MM-related healthcare costs were attributed to drug and infusion costs (US$450,952 per patient). CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective US claims-database study, patients with MM with ≥ 4 prior LOTs, including TCE, continued to experience high healthcare costs that were mostly attributable to anti-myeloma drugs and their administration.

Comparative Efficacy of Ciltacabtagene Autoleucel in CARTITUDE-1 vs Physician's Choice of Therapy in the Long-Term Follow-Up of POLLUX, CASTOR, and EQUULEUS Clinical Trials for the Treatment of Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) is a novel agent being investigated in the single-arm CARTITUDE-1 trial (NCT03548207) for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who are triple-class exposed to an immunomodulatory drug, proteasome inhibitor, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody. The objective of this study was to evaluate the comparative efficacy of cilta-cel vs physician's choice of treatment, as no head-to-head trials have been conducted. METHODS: An external control arm for CARTITUDE-1 was created from patients in the long-term follow-up for three clinical trials of daratumumab (POLLUX, CASTOR, and EQUULEUS) who satisfied the eligibility criteria of CARTITUDE-1. These patients received physician's choice of treatment following the discontinuation of study drugs. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to align the external control and CARTITUDE-1 populations on important baseline characteristics. Overall response rate, complete response or better rate, progression-free survival, time to next treatment, and overall survival were assessed. Several sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: After propensity score weighting, baseline characteristics were comparable between cohorts. Patients showed improved results with cilta-cel vs physician's choice of treatment: overall response rate (relative risk: 2.95 [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.27, 3.84; p < 0.0001]), complete response or better (relative risk: 111.70 [95% CI 29.08, 429.06; p < 0.0001]), progression-free survival (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.24 [95% CI 0.15, 0.37; p < 0.0001]), time to next treatment (HR: 0.14 [95% CI 0.09, 0.22; p < 0.0001]), and overall survival (HR: 0.21 [95% CI 0.13, 0.35; p < 0.0001]). Results were consistent across all sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Cilta-cel showed superior efficacy compared with physician's choice of treatment, making it a promising new treatment option for patients with triple-class exposed relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

Meta-analysis of ciltacabtagene autoleucel versus physician's choice therapy for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

Objective: In the absence of head-to-head trials, indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) between ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel; in CARTITUDE-1) and treatments used in real-world clinical practice (physician's choice of treatment [PCT]), were previously conducted. We conducted multiple meta-analyses using available ITC data to consolidate the effectiveness of cilta-cel versus PCT for patients with triple-class exposed relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM).Methods: Five ITCs were assessed for similarity to ensure robust comparisons using meta-analysis. Effectiveness outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), time to next treatment (TTNT), and overall response rate (ORR). A robust variance estimator was used to account for the use of CARTITUDE-1 in each pairwise ITC. Analyses were conducted in both treated and enrolled populations of CARTITUDE-1.Results: Four ITCs were combined for evaluation of OS. Results were statistically significantly in favor of cilta-cel versus PCT in treated patients (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.24, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.22-0.26). Three ITCs were combined for evaluation of PFS and TTNT. Cilta-cel reduced the risk of progression and receiving a subsequent treatment by 80% (HR: 0.20 [95% CI: 0.06, 0.70]) and 83% (HR: 0.17 [95% CI: 0.12, 0.26]), respectively. Three ITCs were combined for evaluation of ORR. Cilta-cel increased the odds of achieving an overall response by 86-times versus PCT in treated patients. Findings were consistent in the enrolled populations and across sensitivity analyses.Conclusions: Evaluating multiple indirect comparisons, cilta-cel demonstrated a significantly superior advantage over PCT, highlighting its effectiveness as a therapy in patients with triple-class exposed RRMM.

Matching-adjusted indirect comparison of efficacy outcomes for ciltacabtagene autoleucel in CARTITUDE-1 versus idecabtagene vicleucel in KarMMa for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

OBJECTIVE: This study estimated the comparative efficacy of ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) versus the approved idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) dose range of 300-460 × 106 CAR-positive T-cells for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who were previously treated with a proteasome inhibitor, an immunomodulatory drug, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody (i.e. triple-class exposed) using matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparisons (MAICs). METHODS: MAICs were performed with individual patient data for cilta-cel (CARTITUDE-1; NCT03548207) and published summary-level data for ide-cel (KarMMa; NCT03361748). Treated patients from CARTITUDE-1 who satisfied the eligibility criteria for KarMMa were included in the analyses. The MAIC adjusted for unbalanced baseline covariates of prognostic significance identified in the literature and by clinical expertise. Comparative efficacy was estimated for overall response rate (ORR), complete response or better (≥CR) rate, duration of response (DoR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Cilta-cel was associated with statistically significantly improved ORR (odds ratio [OR]: 94.93 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 21.86, 412.25; p < .0001]; relative risk [RR]: 1.34), ≥CR rate (OR: 5.49 [95% CI: 2.47, 12.21; p < .0001]; RR: 2.21), DoR (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.50 [95% CI: 0.29, 0.87; p = .0137]), and PFS (HR: 0.37 [95% CI: 0.22, 0.62; p = .0002]) when compared with ide-cel. For OS, the results were in favor of cilta-cel and clinically meaningful but with a CI overlapping one (HR: 0.55 [95% CI: 0.29, 1.05; p = .0702]). CONCLUSIONS: These analyses demonstrate improved efficacy with cilta-cel versus ide-cel for all outcomes, highlighting its therapeutic potential in patients with triple-class exposed RRMM.