Medication persistence and its impact on type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVES: Medication persistence in type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a critical factor for preventing adverse clinical events. We assessed persistence among newly treated patients with T2D and documented the impact of persistence on clinical outcomes and costs. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study of Optum Clinformatics Data Mart commercial and Medicare Advantage enrollees from 2007 to 2020. METHODS: We identified adult patients who initiated antidiabetic treatments. Patients were required to have at least 1 treatment-free year prior to their first T2D prescription. Persistence was measured as the duration of continuous therapy until a 60-day gap in drug availability appeared in any antidiabetic therapy. Factors associated with duration were documented, focusing on the initial class(es) of T2D drugs. The impact of treatment duration on the risk of hospitalization and on total health care costs was also examined. RESULTS: A total of 673,265 patients were included, with a median follow-up of 7 years. Only 22% of patients maintained continuous treatment, of whom 10% added a second medication. A 1-month increase in duration was associated with reduced risk of hospitalization due to stroke by 0.54% (95% CI, 0.46%-0.60%), acute myocardial infarction by 0.51% (95% CI, 0.44%-0.57%), and all-cause hospitalization by 0.36% (95% CI, 0.34%-0.37%). A 1-month increase in duration was associated with a year-to-year decrease in medical costs of $51 (95% CI, -$54 to -$48) and an increase in year-to-year drug costs of $14 (95% CI, $13-$14). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show low persistence among patients with T2D and emphasize the importance of medication persistence, which is associated with cost savings and lower risk of hospitalizations.

Cost-effectiveness of second-line lisocabtagene maraleucel in relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

ABSTRACT: Lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel), a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, received the US Food and Drug Administration approval in 2022 for second-line treatment of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) for patients with refractory disease or early relapse after first-line chemoimmunotherapy. This decision was based on the TRANSFORM study demonstrating improvements in event-free survival with liso-cel compared with standard care. Given the high costs of CAR T-cell therapies, particularly as they transition to second-line treatment, a cost-effectiveness analysis is essential to determine their economic viability. The study used a partitioned survival model with standard parametric functions to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of liso-cel aganist platinum-based chemotherapy followed by high-dose chemotherapy and autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation over a lifetime horizon The analysis relied on data from the TRANSFORM and TRANSCEND trials, established literature, and public data sets to calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). For a representative cohort of US adults aged 60 years, ICER of liso-cel was $99 669 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) from a health care sector perspective and $68 212 per QALY from a societal perspective, confirming its cost-effectiveness at the $100 000 per QALY threshold. Nonetheless, under certain scenarios, liso-cel surpasses this benchmark but remains within the US acceptable range of $150 000 per QALY. A key finding underlines the importance of incorporating productivity losses into such analyses to capture the broader societal values of novel therapies. Although these therapies offer substantial clinical benefits, their high acquisition costs and limited long-term data critically challenge their economic sustainability.

Cost-effectiveness of Axicabtagene Ciloleucel and Tisagenlecleucel as Second-line or Later Therapy in Relapsed or Refractory Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma.

Importance: Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapies are approved as a third-line or later therapy for several hematological malignant neoplasms. Recently, randomized clinical trials have investigated their efficacy as a second-line treatment in high-risk relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) compared with salvage chemotherapy followed by hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of axicabtagene ciloleucel and tisagenlecleucel vs standard care (SC) as second-line or later therapy for relapsed or refractory DLBCL, from both US health care sector and societal perspectives at a cost-effectiveness threshold of $150 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation assessed cost-effectiveness using a partitioned survival model with 2021 US dollars and QALYs over a lifetime horizon. Model inputs were derived from 2 randomized clinical trials (ZUMA-7 and BELINDA) and published literature. In the trials, patients who did not respond to SC received CAR T cells (treatment switching or crossover), either outside the protocol (ZUMA-7) or as part of the protocol (BELINDA). A separate scenario analysis compared second-line axicabtagene ciloleucel with SC alone without treatment crossover to CAR T cell therapy. Data analysis was performed from December 18, 2021, to September 13, 2022. Exposures: CAR T cell therapy (axicabtagene ciloleucel and tisagenlecleucel) compared with salvage chemotherapy followed by HSCT. Main Outcomes and Measures: Costs and QALYs were used to derive incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for the health care sector and societal perspectives. Cost and QALYs were discounted at 3.0% annually. Univariate and multivariate probabilistic sensitivity analysis using 10 000 Monte Carlo simulations were applied to test model uncertainty on the ICER. Results: Second-line axicabtagene ciloleucel was associated with an ICER of $99 101 per QALY from the health care sector perspective and an ICER of $97 977 per QALY from the societal perspective, while second-line tisagenlecleucel was dominated by SC (incremental costs of $37 803 from the health care sector and $39 480 from the societal perspective with decremental QALY of -0.02). Third-line or later tisagenlecleucel was associated with an ICER of $126 593 per QALY from the health care sector perspective and an ICER of $128 012 per QALY from the societal perspective. Based on the scenario analysis of no treatment switching, second-line axicabtagene ciloleucel yielded an ICER of $216 790 per QALY from the health care sector perspective and an ICER of $218 907 per QALY from the societal perspective, compared with SC. When accounting for patients achieving prolonged progression-free survival who would not incur progression-related costs, in this scenario ICER changed to $125 962 per QALY from the health care sector perspective and $122 931 per QALY from the societal perspective. These results were most sensitive to increased list prices of CAR T cell therapy and QALY losses associated with axicabtagene ciloleucel and tisagenlecleucel. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that second-line axicabtagene ciloleucel and third-line or later tisagenlecleucel were cost-effective in treating patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL at the cost-effectiveness threshold of $150 000 per QALY. However, uncertainty remains regarding the best candidates who would experience value gains from receiving CAR T cell therapy.