Cost-effectiveness of treating relapsed or refractory 3L+ follicular lymphoma with axicabtagene ciloleucel vs mosunetuzumab in the United States.

Introduction: Novel therapies for 3L+ relapsed/refractory (r/r) follicular lymphoma (FL) have been approved recently by the US Food and Drug Administration including anti-CD19 CAR-T therapies such as axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) and CD20 × CD3 T-cell-engaging bispecific monoclonal antibodies such as mosunetuzumab (mosun). The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of axi-cel compared to mosun in 3L+ r/r FL patients from a US third-party payer perspective. Methods: A three-state (progression-free, progressed disease, and death) partitioned-survival model was used to compare two treatments over a lifetime horizon in a hypothetical cohort of US adults (age ≥18) receiving 3L+ treatment for r/r FL. ZUMA-5 and GO29781 trial data were used to inform progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Mosun survival was modeled via hazard ratios (HRs) applied to axi-cel survival curves. The PFS HR value was estimated via a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) based on mosun pseudo-individual patient data and adjusted axi-cel data to account for trial populations differences. One-way sensitivity analysis (OWSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were conducted. Scenario analyses included: 1) the mosun HRs were applied to the weighted (adjusted) ZUMA-5 24-month data to most exactly reflect the MAIC, 2) mosun HR values were applied to axi-cel 48-month follow-up data, and 3) recent axi-cel health state utility values in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients. Results: The analysis estimated increases of 1.82 LY and 1.89 QALY for axi-cel compared to mosun. PFS for axi-cel patients was 6.42 LY vs. 1.60 LY for mosun. Increase of $257,113 in the progression-free state was driven by one-time axi-cel treatment costs. Total incremental costs for axi-cel were $204,377, resulting in an ICER of $108,307/QALY gained. The OWSA led to ICERs ranging from $240,255 to $75,624, with all but two parameters falling below $150,000/QALY. In the PSA, axi-cel had an 64% probability of being cost-effective across 5,000 iterations using a $150,000 willingness-to-pay threshold. Scenarios one and two resulted in ICERs of $105,353 and $102,695, respectively. Discussion: This study finds that axi-cel is cost-effective compared to mosun at the commonly cited $150,000/QALY US willingness-to-pay threshold, with robust results across a range of sensitivity analyses accounting for parameter uncertainty.

Cost-Effectiveness of Axicabtagene Ciloleucel for Adult Patients With Relapsed or Refractory Follicular Lymphoma in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: The results of a recent single-arm trial (ZUMA-5) of axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) for relapsed/refractory (r/r) follicular lymphoma (FL) demonstrated high rates of durable response and tolerable toxicity among treated patients. To quantify the value of axi-cel compared with standard of care (SOC) to manage r/r FL patients who have had at least 2 prior lines of systemic therapy (3L+), a cost-effectiveness model was developed from a US third-party payer perspective. METHODS: A 3-state partitioned-survival cost-effectiveness model was developed with a lifetime horizon. Patient-level analyses of the 36-month ZUMA-5 (axi-cel) and SCHOLAR-5 (SOC) studies were used to extrapolate progression-free and overall survivals. After 5 years of survival, an estimated 40% of the modeled population was assumed to experience long-term remission based on literature. Results include the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) measured as incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. One-way sensitivity analysis, probabilistic sensitivity analysis, and scenario analyses were performed. All outcomes were discounted 3% per year. RESULTS: Axi-cel led to an increase of 4.28 life-years, 3.64 QALYs, and a total cost increase of $321 192 relative to SOC, resulting in an ICER of $88 300 per QALY. Across all parameters varied in the one-way sensitivity analysis, the ICER varied between $133 030 and $67 277. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, axi-cel had a 99% probability of being cost-effective across 5000 iterations using a $150 000 willingness-to-pay threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Given the robustness of the model results and sensitivity analyses, axi-cel is expected to be a cost-effective treatment in 3L+ r/r FL.

Network meta-analysis of CAR T-Cell therapy for the treatment of 3L+ R/R LBCL after using published comparative studies.

INTRODUCTION: Studies have compared chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies and salvage chemotherapy in relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) patients, but further evidence of their relative effectiveness is warranted. METHODS: Our systematic review identified studies comparing efficacy and safety outcomes of axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel), lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) and tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) trials to salvage chemotherapy cohorts in LBCL patients with ≥2 prior lines of treatment; and an extended evidence network included indirect comparisons comparing CAR T-cell therapies. We conducted network meta-analyzes using Bayesian hierarchical modeling. RESULTS: Three studies comparing ZUMA-1 (axi-cel), TRANSCEND (liso-cel) and JULIET (tisa-cel) trials to salvage chemotherapy within the SCHOLAR-1 cohort were identified. Axi-cel (odds ratio [OR]:5.63; 95% credible interval [CrI]:2.66-12.42) and liso-cel (OR:4.26; 95%CrI:2.33-7.93) showed a significant increased overall response rate compared to tisa-cel, but not to one-another. Axi-cel demonstrated significant improvements in overall survival relative to liso-cel (hazard ratio [HR]:0.54; 95%CrI:0.37-0.79) and tisa-cel (HR:0.47; 95%CrI:0.26-0.88). Higher rates of grade ≥3 neurological events were observed with axi-cel than with tisa-cel and liso-cel. CONCLUSIONS: We highlight important differences in clinical outcomes between CAR T-cell therapies. Axi-cel demonstrated improved overall survival compared to tisa-cel and liso-cel, and both axi-cel and liso-cel showed higher response rates compared to tisa-cel.

Benefit of axicabtagene ciloleucel versus chemoimmunotherapy in older patients and/or patients with poor ECOG performance status with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma after 2 or more lines of prior therapy.

Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) in trials has demonstrated favorable efficacy compared with historical controls after ≥2 lines of therapy for the treatment of relapsed or refractory (R/R) large B cell lymphoma (LBCL). Herein, we compared the real-world effectiveness of axi-cel with efficacy and effectiveness of chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) in patients aged ≥65 years and patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of 2. A total of 1146 patients treated with commercial axi-cel for R/R LBCL with ≥2 lines of prior therapy were included from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplantation Research prospective observational study, and 469 patients treated with CIT for R/R LBCL after ≥2 lines of prior therapy were included from SCHOLAR-1 (an international, multicohort, retrospective study). After propensity score matching, at a median follow-up of 24 months for patients receiving axi-cel and 60 months for patients receiving CIT, 12-month overall survival rates were 62% and 28%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.30 [95% CI, 0.24-0.37]). Objective response rate (ORR) was 76% (complete response [CR] rate 58%) in patients receiving axi-cel versus 28% (CR rate 16%) for those receiving CIT. A 57% difference in ORR (55% difference in CR rate) favoring axi-cel over CIT was observed among patients aged ≥65 years. Increased magnitude of benefit in response rates for axi-cel versus CIT was also observed among patients with ECOG PS = 2. These findings further support the broader use of axi-cel in older patients and patients with ECOG PS = 2 with R/R LBCL.

A Comparison of 3-Year Follow-up of ZUMA-5 (Axicabtagene Ciloleucel) With SCHOLAR-5 in Relapsed/Refractory Follicular Lymphoma.

In the pivotal ZUMA-5 trial, axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel; an autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy) demonstrated high rates of durable response in relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma patients. SCHOLAR-5 is an external control cohort designed to act as a comparator to ZUMA-5. Here, we present an updated comparative analysis of ZUMA-5 and SCHOLAR-5, using the 36-month follow-up data and the intent-to-treat population of ZUMA-5. Using propensity-score methods, 127 patients in ZUMA-5 were compared to 129 patients in SCHOLAR-5. At this extended follow-up, axi-cel continues to demonstrate clinically meaningful benefits in survival compared to historically available treatments in this population.

Cost-effectiveness of axicabtagene ciloleucel versus tisagenlecleucel for the treatment of 3L + relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma in the United States: incorporating longer survival results.

AIMS: To provide an update on the cost-effectiveness of the chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) and tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) for the treatment of relapsed/refractory (r/r) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) among patients who have previously received ≥2 lines of systemic therapy using more mature clinical trial data cuts (60 months for axi-cel overall survival [OS] and 45 months for tisa-cel OS and progression-free survival [PFS]). METHODS: A partitioned survival model consisting of three health states (pre-progression, post-progression and death) was used to estimate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs associated with axi-cel and tisa-cel over a lifetime horizon. PFS and OS inputs for axi-cel and tisa-cel were based on a previously published matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparison (MAIC). Long-term OS and PFS were extrapolated using parametric survival mixture cure models (PS-MCMs). Costs of CAR-T cell therapy drug acquisition and administration, conditioning chemotherapy, apheresis, CAR T-specific monitoring, stem cell transplant, hospitalization, adverse events, routine care, and terminal care were sourced from US cost databases. Health state utilities were derived from previous publications. Model inputs were varied using a range of sensitivity and scenario analyses. RESULTS: Compared with tisa-cel, axi-cel resulted in 2.51 additional QALYs and $50,185 additional costs (an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] of $19,994 per QALY gained). In probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA), the ICER for axi-cel versus tisa-cel was ≤$50,000/QALY in 99.4% of simulations and ≤$33,500 in 99% of simulations. Axi-cel remained cost-effective versus tisa-cel (assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY) across a range of scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: With longer-term survival data, axi-cel continues to represent a cost-effective option versus tisa-cel for treatment of r/r LBCL among patients who have previously received ≥2 lines of systemic therapy, from a US payer perspective.

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.

A 24-month updated analysis of the comparative effectiveness of ZUMA-5 (axi-cel) vs. SCHOLAR-5 external control in relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma.

BACKGROUND: In the ZUMA-5 trial (Clinical trials identification: NCT03105336), axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel; a chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy) demonstrated high rates of durable response in relapsed/refractory (r/r) follicular lymphoma (FL) patients and clear superiority relative to the SCHOLAR-5 external control cohort. We update this comparison using the ZUMA-5 24-month data. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The SCHOLAR-5 cohort is comprised of r/r FL patients who initiated ≥3rd line of therapy after July 2014 and meeting ZUMA-5 eligibility criteria. Groups were balanced for patient characteristics through propensity scoring on prespecified prognostic factors using standardized mortality ratio (SMR) weighting. The overall response rate was compared using a weighted logistic regression. Time-to-event outcomes were evaluated using a Cox regression. RESULTS: For SCHOLAR-5, the sum of weights for the 143 patients was 85 after SMR weighting, versus 86 patients in ZUMA-5. The median follow-up was 29.4 months and 25.4 months for ZUMA-5 and SCHOLAR-5, respectively. The hazard ratios for overall survival and progression-free survival were 0.52 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.28-0.95) and 0.28 (95% CI: 0.17-0.45), favoring axi-cel. CONCLUSION: This updated analysis, using a longer minimum follow-up than a previously published analysis, shows that the improved efficacy of axi-cel, relative to available therapies, in r/r FL is durable. .

Clinical outcomes in patients relapsed/refractory after ≥2 prior lines of therapy for follicular lymphoma: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with follicular lymphoma (FL) can have high response rates to early lines of treatment. However, among FL patients relapsed/refractory (r/r) after ≥2 prior lines of therapy (LOT), remission tends to be shorter and there is limited treatment guidance. This study sought to evaluate the clinical outcomes for r/r FL after ≥2 prior LOT identified through systematic literature review. METHODS: Eligible studies included comparative or non-comparative interventional or observational studies of systemic therapies among adults with FL r/r after ≥2 prior LOT published prior to 31st May 2021. Prior LOT must have included an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody and an alkylating agent, in combination or separately. Overall response rate (ORR) and complete response (CR) were estimated using inverse-variance weighting with Freeman-Tukey double-arcsine transformations. Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) estimated by reconstructing digitized curves using the Guyot algorithm, and survival analyses were conducted, stratified by ≥2 prior LOT and ≥ 3 prior LOT groups (as defined in the source material). Restricting the analyses to the observational cohorts was investigated as a sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: The analysis-set included 20 studies published between 2014 and 2021. Studies were primarily US and/or European based, with the few exceptions using treatments approved in US/Europe. The estimated ORR was 58.47% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 51.13-65.62) and proportion of patients with CR was 19.63% (95% CI: 15.02-24.68). The median OS among those ≥2 prior LOT was 56.57 months (95% CI: 47.8-68.78) and median PFS was 9.78 months (95% CI: 9.01-10.63). The 24-month OS decreased from 66.50% in the ≥2 prior LOT group to 59.51% in the ≥3 prior LOT group, with a similar trend in PFS at 24-month (28.42% vs 24.13%). CONCLUSIONS: This study found that few r/r FL patients with ≥2 prior LOT achieve CR, and despite some benefit, approximately 1/3 of treated patients die within 24 months. The shorter median PFS with increasing prior LOT suggest treatment durability is suboptimal in later LOT. These findings indicate that patients are underserved by treatments currently available in the US and Europe.

Treatment patterns and outcomes in relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma: results from the international SCHOLAR-5 study.

The SCHOLAR-5 study examines treatment patterns and outcomes of real-world follicular lymphoma (FL) patients on 3rd line of treatment (LoT) or higher, for whom existing data are limited. SCHOLAR-5 is a retrospective cohort study using data from adults (≥ 18 years) with grade 1-3a FL, initiating ≥3rd LoT after June 2014 at major lymphoma centers in the US and Europe. Objective response rate (ORR), complete response (CR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed by LoT. Time-to-event outcomes were assessed using Kaplan-Meier methods. Of 128 patients, 87 initiated 3rd LoT, 63 initiated 4th LoT, and 47 initiated 5th LoT. At 1st eligible LoT, 31% progressed within 24-months of 1st LoT anti-CD20 combination therapy, 28% had prior autologous stem cell transplantation, and 31% were refractory to the previous LoT. The most common regimen in each LoT was chemoimmunotherapy; however, experimental drugs were increasingly used at later LoT. In the US, anti-CD20 monotherapy was more common at ≥3rd LoT compared to Europe, where stem cell transplants were more common. ORR at 3rd LoT was 68% (CR 44%), but decreased after each LoT to 37% (CR 22%) in ≥5 LoT. Median OS and PFS at 3rd LoT were 68 and 11 months, respectively, and reduced to 43 and 4 months at ≥5 LoT. Treatments were heterogenous at each LoT in both the US and Europe. Few FL patients achieved CR in later LoT, and duration of response and survival diminished with each subsequent line.

Matching-adjusted indirect comparison of axi-cel and liso-cel in relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma.

In the absence of a randomized head-to-head trial, an unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison was performed to estimate the relative treatment effects of axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel; ZUMA-1) versus lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel; TRANSCEND-NHL-001) for treatment of relapsed/refractory (R/R) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) after at least two lines of therapy. After matching, axi-cel and liso-cel had comparable objective response rates and duration. Compared to liso-cel, axi-cel was associated with improvements in overall survival (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.53 [95% CI: 0.34-0.82]) and progression-free survival (HR: 0.61 [95% CI: 0.40-0.92]). Axi-cel was associated with a higher rate of grade ≥3 cytokine release syndrome (odds ratio [OR]: 3.64 [95% CI: 1.04-12.76]) and neurological events (OR: 3.45 [95% CI: 1.65-7.19]), with smaller differences estimated in scenario analyses including ZUMA-1 safety management cohorts. Results suggest axi-cel improved survival compared to liso-cel but with increased odds of specific adverse events.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Axicabtagene Ciloleucel as Second-Line Therapy in Patients with Large B-Cell Lymphoma in the United States: An Economic Evaluation of the ZUMA-7 Trial.

Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) was found to have superior clinical outcomes compared to standard of care (SOC; salvage chemoimmunotherapy, followed by high-dose therapy with autologous stem cell rescue for responders) for second-line large B-cell lymphoma (2L LBCL) in the pivotal ZUMA-7 trial. The aim of this analysis was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of using axi-cel compared to the current standard 2L LBCL therapy. A 3-state partitioned-survival model estimated the cost effectiveness and budget impact from a payer perspective in the United States. Clinical outcomes were extrapolated based on the pivotal trial. The model calculated expected quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), total costs (in United States dollars [USD], and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), along with the budget impact. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed. The proportion alive at 10 years was estimated as 48% for axi-cel and 38% for SOC; median overall survival was estimated at 59 and 24 months for axi-cel and SOC, respectively. Over a lifetime horizon, the model estimated a total of 5.56 and 7.08 QALYs for SOC and axi-cel, respectively, of which 41% and 74% were in the event-free state, respectively. Incremental QALYs and costs were 1.51 and $100,366 USD, resulting in an ICER of $66,381 USD per QALY for axi-cel versus SOC. Despite crossover to subsequent CAR T in the SOC arm, second-line CAR T use was found to improve the quality and length of life compared to SOC. Cost offsets due to subsequent CAR T use led to a limited incremental cost difference. Treatment with axi-cel is a cost-effective option that addresses an important unmet clinical need for patients with LBCL who relapse or are refractory to front-line therapy.

Comparative effectiveness of ZUMA-5 (axi-cel) vs SCHOLAR-5 external control in relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma.

In the pivotal ZUMA-5 trial, axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel; an autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy) demonstrated high rates of durable response in relapsed/refractory (r/r) follicular lymphoma (FL) patients. Here, outcomes from ZUMA-5 are compared with the international SCHOLAR-5 cohort, which applied key ZUMA-5 trial eligibility criteria simulating randomized controlled trial conditions. SCHOLAR-5 data were extracted from institutions in 5 countries, and from 1 historical clinical trial, for r/r FL patients who initiated a third or higher line of therapy after July 2014. Patient characteristics were balanced through propensity scoring on prespecified prognostic factors using standardized mortality ratio (SMR) weighting. Time-to-event outcomes were evaluated using weighted Kaplan-Meier analysis. Overall response rate (ORR) and complete response (CR) rate were compared using weighted odds ratios. The 143 ScHOLAR-5 patients reduced to an effective sample of 85 patients after SMR weighting vs 86 patients in ZUMA-5. Median follow-up time was 25.4 and 23.3 months for SCHOLAR-5 and ZUMA-5. Median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in SCHOLAR-5 were 59.8 months and 12.7 months and not reached in ZUMA-5. Hazard ratios for OS and PFS were 0.42 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.21-0.83) and 0.30 (95% CI, 0.18-0.49). The ORR and CR rate were 49.9% and 29.9% in SCHOLAR-5 and 94.2% and 79.1% in ZUMA-5, for odds ratios of 16.2 (95% CI, 5.6-46.9) and 8.9 (95% CI, 4.3-18.3). Compared with available therapies, axi-cel demonstrated an improvement in meaningful clinical endpoints, suggesting axi-cel addresses an important unmet need for r/r FL patients. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT03105336.

Approaches to Selecting "Time Zero" in External Control Arms with Multiple Potential Entry Points: A Simulation Study of 8 Approaches.

BACKGROUND: When including data from an external control arm to estimate comparative effectiveness, there is a methodological choice of when to set "time zero," the point at which a patient would be eligible/enrolled in a contemporary study. Where patients receive multiple lines of eligible therapy and thus alternative points could be selected, this issue is complex. METHODS: A simulation study was conducted in which patients received multiple prior lines of therapy before entering either cohort. The results from the control and intervention data sets are compared using 8 methods for selecting time zero. The base-case comparison was set up to be biased against the intervention (which is generally received later), with methods compared in their ability to estimate the true intervention effectiveness. We further investigate the impact of key study attributes (such as sample size) and degree of overlap in time-varying covariates (such as prior lines of therapy) on study results. RESULTS: Of the 8 methods, 5 (all lines, random line, systematically selecting groups based on mean absolute error, root mean square error, or propensity scores) showed good performance in accounting for differences between the line at which patients were included. The first eligible line can be statistically inefficient in some situations. All lines (with censoring) cannot be used for survival outcomes. The last eligible line cannot be recommended. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple methods are available for selecting the most appropriate time zero from an external control arm. Based on the simulation, we demonstrate that some methods frequently perform poorly, with several viable methods remaining. In selecting between the viable methods, analysts should consider the context of their analysis and justify the approach selected. HIGHLIGHTS: There are multiple methods available from which an analyst may select "time zero" in an external control cohort.This simulation study demonstrates that some methods perform poorly but most are viable options, depending on context and the degree of overlap in time zero across cohorts.Careful thought and clear justification should be used when selecting the strategy for a study.

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.

Burden of illness and outcomes in second-line large B-cell lymphoma treatment: real-world analysis of Medicare beneficiaries.

Aims: To characterize elderly large B-cell lymphoma patients who progress to second-line treatment to identify potential unmet treatment needs. Patients & methods: Retrospective USA cohort study, patients receiving second-line autologous stem cell transplant (SCT) preparative regimen ('ASCT-intended') versus those who did not; stratified further into those who received a stem cell transplant and those who did not. Primary outcomes were: healthcare resource utilization, costs and adverse events. Results: 1045 patients (22.0%) were included in the ASCT-intended group, 23.3% of whom received SCT (5.1% of entire second-line population). Non-SCT patients were older and had more comorbidities and generally higher rates of healthcare resource utilization and costs. Conclusion: Elderly second-line large B-cell lymphoma patients incurred substantial costs and a minority received potentially curative SCT, suggesting significant unmet need.

Lay abstract Large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) is an aggressive form of cancer. Although chemotherapy is often initially successful, LBCL recurs in about 50% of patients. For many years, the standard of care for recurrent LBCL has been a course of strong chemotherapy followed by stem cell transplant (SCT). However, many older patients cannot tolerate or do not respond well to chemotherapy and therefore cannot proceed to SCT. In this real-world study of Medicare patients, we found that only 5.1% of patients with recurrent LBCL ever received potentially curative SCT. They also had higher healthcare costs than similar patients who did receive SCT. This shows a significant unmet need in elderly LBCL patients that may potentially be addressed with recent treatment innovations.

Characteristics and Treatment Patterns of Newly Diagnosed Open-Angle Glaucoma Patients in the United States: An Administrative Database Analysis.

PURPOSE: To characterize newly diagnosed primary open-angle glaucoma (OAG) patients and to describe their treatment journey in United States clinical practice according to the use of topical therapy, laser trabeculoplasty, and surgical procedures. DESIGN: Retrospective claims database study. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with at least 2 diagnoses of OAG 7 days or more apart and within 1 year, with the first (index) diagnosis in 2010, at least 30 months of continuous enrollment before index diagnosis with no OAG diagnosis or medication (exception for ocular hypertension diagnosis), and 48 months of continuous enrollment. METHODS: Analysis of United States healthcare insurance claims database (July 2007-December 2014). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Treatment patterns and ophthalmology visits were evaluated over 48 months in 4 cohorts based on initial therapy after the index diagnosis: (1) drug monotherapy, (2) combination drug therapy, (3) glaucoma procedure, or (4) no claims for treatment. Treatment modification was defined as an addition to or change in drug therapy or procedure. RESULTS: In total, 83.0% of patients (5120/6172) began a drug therapy (69.5%) or underwent a procedure initially (13.5%); topical prostaglandin analogs (n = 2887/5120 [56.4%]) and laser trabeculoplasty (n = 705/5120 [13.8%]) were the most common. During the 4-year follow-up, 58.3% of patients (2109/3620) who began drug monotherapy experienced no further treatment modification. Over this period, 43.8% of patients who began treatment (2242/5120) experienced a treatment modification to the first treatment. Two thirds (1505/2242 [67.1%]) of these patients subsequently underwent a third treatment modification. Ophthalmology visits declined over time regardless of initial therapy, with the greatest decrease among the untreated and first-treatment procedure cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: The high rates of 2 or 3 treatment modifications over the 4-year period suggest an unmet need for glaucoma therapies with durable and predictable actions.

Economic and Clinical Burden Associated With Intensification of Glaucoma Topical Therapy: A US Claims-based Analysis.

PRECIS: Incremental addition of intraocular pressure-lowering topical drops is associated with shorter-lasting benefit and higher health-related costs with each additional agent, suggesting a need for new treatment options to improve disease control and reduce treatment burden. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate treatment intensification as a driver of clinical and economic burden in patients receiving topical glaucoma medications for open-angle glaucoma/ocular hypertension. METHODS: This retrospective analysis of administrative claims data (January 2011 to July 2017) from the IQVIA PharMetrics Plus database included diagnosed patients who initiated or intensified treatment with 1 to 4 topical glaucoma medications of a different drug class between January 2012 and July 2015 (index date being the first such event during this period). Patients with prior open-angle glaucoma surgery or an equal or greater number of topical glaucoma medication classes during the preindex period were excluded. Treatment intensification rates and eye-related outpatient costs were assessed over 24 months postindex. RESULTS: Of 48,402 patients (mean age: 61.4 y), 22,874 (47.3%), 16,214 (33.5%), 7137 (14.7%), and 2177 (4.5%) received a first, second, third, or fourth medication class, respectively, as their first observed initial or intensified regimen. Among cohorts receiving 1, 2, 3, or 4 medication classes, 7.8%, 12.2%, 17.2%, and 22.6% of patients and 12.6%, 18.5%, 25.9%, and 33.7% of patients had subsequent treatment augmentation (class addition or glaucoma procedure, laser or surgical) within 12 and 24 months postindex, respectively. Eye-related outpatient costs over 24 months increased with each additional topical glaucoma medication class at index [mean (SD): $1610 ($3460), $2418 ($4863), $2872 ($5110), and $3751 ($6608) in the 1, 2, 3, or 4 class cohorts, respectively]. CONCLUSION: Multiple-drop therapies yielded shorter-lasting benefits with each additional agent and were associated with the increased clinical and economic burden.

Evaluating Alternative Designs of a Multilevel HIV Intervention in Maharashtra, India: The Impact of Stakeholder Constraints.

Background. Multilevel interventions combine individual component interventions, and their design can be informed by decision analysis. Our objective was to identify the optimal combination of interventions for alcohol-using HIV+ individuals on antiretroviral drug therapy in Maharashtra, India, explicitly considering stakeholder constraints. Methods. Using an HIV simulation, we evaluated the expected net monetary benefit (ENMB), the probability of lying on the efficiency frontier (PEF), and annual program costs of 5,836 unique combinations of 15 single-focused HIV risk-reduction interventions. We evaluated scenarios of 1) no constraints (i.e., maximize expected value), 2) short-term budget constraints (limits on annual programmatic costs of US$200,000 and $400,000), and 3) a constraint stemming from risk aversion (requiring that the strategy has >50% PEF). Results. With no constraints, the combination including long individual alcohol counseling, text-message adherence support, long group counseling for sex-risk, and long individual counseling for sex-risk (annual cost = $428,886; PEF ∼27%) maximized ENMB and would be the optimal design. With a cost constraint of $400,000, the combination including long individual alcohol counseling, text-message adherence support, brief group counseling for sex-risk, and long individual counseling for sex-risk (annual cost = $374,745; PEF ∼4%) maximized ENMB. With a cost constraint of $200,000, the combination including long individual alcohol counseling, text-message adherence support, and brief group counseling for sex-risk (annual cost = $187,335; PEF ∼54%) maximized ENMB. With the risk aversion constraint, the same configuration (long individual alcohol counseling, text-message support, and brief group counseling for sex-risk) maximized health benefit. Conclusion. Evaluating the costs, risks, and projected benefits of alternatives supports informed decision making prior to initiating study; however, stakeholder constraints should be explicitly included and discussed when using decision analyses to guide study design.