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.

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.