Cost-effectiveness for KTE-X19 CAR T therapy for adult patients with relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma in the United States

Efficacy, safety, and cost-minimization analysis of axicabtagene ciloleucel and tisagenlecleucel CAR T-Cell therapies for treatment of relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma

Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) and tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) are chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies used to treat adult patients with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma (rrFL) after two or more lines of systemic therapy. In the absence of head-to-head clinical trials, this study aimed to compare the efficacy, safety, and cost of axi-cel and tisa-cel in the treatment of rrFL after at least two lines of treatment. Overall response rate (ORR) and safety signals were compared using reporting odds ratios (RORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) at p < 0.05. Progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response (DoR), and overall survival (OS) were compared using the Kaplan?Meier method with a log-rank test. Cost and cost-minimization analyses of drug acquisition, drug administration, serious adverse events (AEs), and relapsed management were calculated. Costs were extracted from the IBM-Micromedex Red Book, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and existing literature. Statistical analyses were conducted using Microsoft Excel and R version 4.0.5. No statistically significant differences were observed between axi-cel and tisa-cel in terms of ORR, DoR, and OS (p > 0.05). PFS was significantly better with tisa-cel (p < 0.05). Axi-cel was significantly associated with higher incidences of CRS, neurologic events, and grade 3-4 AEs than tisa-cel (ROR > 1, p < 0.05). Axi-cel and tisa-cel cost $512,021 and $450,885 per patient, respectively, resulting in savings of US$61,136 with tisa-cel over axi-cel. Tisa-cel appears to have a better safety profile, fewer serious AEs, lower mortality rate, and lower cost than axi-cel.

Cost-Effectiveness of brexucabtagene autoleucel for relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma

Brexucabtagene autoleucel is a chimeric anti CD19 antigen receptor T-cell therapy that allows durable responses in relapsed/refractory (R/R) mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). The present study compared the clinical and economic outcomes of R/R MCL patients (pre-exposed to ibrutinib and chemoimmunotherapy) treated with brexucabtagene autoleucel versus Rituximab, bendamustine, cytarabine (R-BAC) in the Italian Healthcare System. A partitioned-survival model extrapolated survival and healthcare costs of R/R MCL patients over a lifetime horizon. Discounted and quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALY) was 6.40 versus 1.20 for brexucabtagene autoleucel versus R-BAC and lifetime costs were €411,403 versus €74,415, respectively, which corresponds to a cost of €64,798 per QALY gained. The results were highly sensitive to brexucabtagene autoleucel acquisition cost and to assumptions on long-term survival, therefore the cost-effectiveness of brexucabtagene autoleucel for patients with R/R MCL requires validation with longer follow-up data and in specific risk subgroups.

Cost-effectiveness and budget impact of pembrolizumab+axitinib versus sunitinib in patients with advanced clear-cell renal cell carcinoma in the Netherlands

Background

The phase 3 clinical trial KEYNOTE-426 suggested a higher efficacy regarding overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) of pembrolizumab+axitinib compared to sunitinib as a first-line treatment for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. In this analysis, the potential cost-effectiveness of this combination treatment versus sunitinib for patients with advanced clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (accRCC) was examined from the societal perspective in the Netherlands.

Methods

For this analysis, a partitioned survival model was constructed. Clinical data were obtained from the published KEYNOTE-426 trial reports; data on costs and (dis-)utilities were derived from published literature. Costs outside of the healthcare sector included treatment-related travel, informal care and productivity loss. Next to a probabilistic scenario analysis, various scenario analyses were performed that aimed at survival extrapolation, different utility values, treatment duration and drug pricing, as well as restricting the cohort to patients with an intermediate or poor prognosis. Further, a budget impact analysis over three years was conducted, in which a sensitivity analysis concerning ranges in costs and the number of patients was applied. Moreover, a scenario concerning increasing market penetration of pembrolizumab+axitinib up to a market share of 80% in the third year was analyzed.

Results

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of pembrolizumab+axitinib was estimated at €368,396/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, with an incremental QALY gain of 0.55 over sunitinib. The probability of cost-effectiveness at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €80,000/QALY was estimated at 0%, a 50% probability was estimated at €340,000/QALY. Cost-effectiveness was not achieved in any of the applied scenarios. The budget impact over three years amounted to €417.3 million upon instantaneous and full replacement of sunitinib, and to €214.9 million with increasing market penetration.

Conclusion

Pembrolizumab+axitinib was not estimated to be cost-effective compared to sunitinib as a first-line treatment for patients with accRCC in the Netherlands from a societal perspective. In none of the analyzed scenarios, cost-effectiveness was achieved. However, price reductions and shorter treatment durations might lead to a more favorable ICER.

Capturing the Impact of Constraints on the Cost-Effectiveness of Cell and Gene Therapies: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

Decision-makers need to resolve constraints on delivering cell and gene therapies to patients as these treatments move into routine care. This study aimed to investigate if, and how, constraints that affect the expected cost and health consequences of cell and gene therapies have been included in published examples of cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs).

METHOD

A systematic review identified CEAs of cell and gene therapies. Studies were identified from previous systematic reviews and by searching Medline and Embase until 21 January 2022. Constraints described qualitatively were categorised by theme and summarised by a narrative synthesis. Constraints evaluated in quantitative scenario analyses were appraised by whether they changed the decision to recommend treatment.

RESULTS

Thirty-two CEAs of cell (n = 20) and gene therapies (n = 12) were included. Twenty-one studies described constraints qualitatively (70% cell therapy CEAs; 58% gene therapy CEAs). Qualitative constraints were categorised by four themes: single payment models; long-term affordability; delivery by providers; manufacturing capability. Thirteen studies assessed constraints quantitatively (60% cell therapy CEAs; 8% gene therapy CEAs). Two types of constraint were assessed quantitatively across four jurisdictions (USA, Canada, Singapore, The Netherlands): alternatives to single payment models (n = 9 scenario analyses); improving manufacturing (n = 12 scenario analyses). The impact on decision-making was determined by whether the estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios crossed a relevant cost-effectiveness threshold for each jurisdiction (outcome-based payment models: n = 25 threshold comparisons made, 28% decisions changed; improving manufacturing: n = 24 threshold comparisons made, 4% decisions changed).

CONCLUSION

The net health impact of constraints is vital evidence to help decision-makers scale up the delivery of cell and gene therapies as patient volume increases and more advanced therapy medicinal products are launched. CEAs will be essential to quantify how constraints affect the cost-effectiveness of care, prioritise constraints to be resolved, and establish the value of strategies to implement cell and gene therapies by accounting for their health opportunity cost.

Resource utilization for chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapy versus autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation in patients with B cell lymphoma

CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor T cells (CAR-T) have emerged as a highly efficacious treatment for patients with relapsed/refractory (r/r) B cell lymphoma (BCL). The value of CAR-T for these patients is indisputable, but one-off production costs are high, and little is known about the ancillary resource consumption associated with CAR-T treatment. Here, we compared the resource use and costs of CAR-T treatment with high-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) for patients with r/r BCL. Standard operating procedures were used to develop a process model in ClipMed^PPM, which comprises all activities and processes to sustain or generate treatment components that together constitute a treatment path. The software allows a graphic representation and the use of standardized linguistic elements for comparison of different treatment paths. Detailed processes involved in CAR-T treatments (n = 1041 processes) and in ASCT (n = 1535) were analyzed for time consumption of treatment phases and personnel. Process costs were calculated using financial controlling data. CAR-T treatment required ~ 30% less staff time than ASCT (primarily nursing staff) due to fewer chemotherapy cycles, less outpatient visits, and shorter hospital stays. For CAR-T, production costs were ~ 8 × higher, but overall treatment time was shorter compared with ASCT (30 vs 48 days), and direct labor and overhead costs were 40% and 10% lower, respectively. Excluding high product costs, CAR-T uses fewer hospital resources than ASCT for r/r BCL. Fewer hospital days for CAR-T compared to ASCT treatment and the conservation of hospital resources are beneficial to patients and the healthcare system.

Cost-Effectiveness of KTE-X19 for Adults with Relapsed/Refractory B-Cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia in the United States

Introduction

Despite currently available treatments for adults with relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia (R/R ALL), survival outcomes remain poor, highlighting the need for new therapeutic strategies. This study estimates the cost-effectiveness of KTE-X19 to treat adults with R/R ALL from a US payer perspective.

Methods

The model had two components: a decision-tree, where pre-infusion costs for patients who ultimately did not receive KTE-X19 are accounted for, followed by a partitioned survival analysis, where all KTE-X19 infused patients would enter the three-state (pre-progression, progressed disease, death) model. Comparators included current standard of care treatments, i.e., blinatumomab (BLIN), inotuzumab ozogamicin (INO), and salvage chemotherapy (CHEMO). Both standard parametric and mixture cure models were used to model survival. Efficacy, safety, healthcare resource utilization, and health state utility inputs were derived from the ZUMA-3 trial (NCT02614066) and literature. Cost inputs were derived from literature or publicly available sources. Outcomes and costs were discounted 3% annually. Results of KTE-X19 versus comparators are reported as total and incremental life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) and key scenario analyses were also performed.

Results

In the base case, incremental QALYs for KTE-X19 were 2.44, 3.26, and 4.61 versus BLIN, INO, and CHEMO, respectively. Incremental costs were $50,913, $251,532, and $432,027, respectively, resulting in ICERs of $20,843/QALY (versus BLIN), $77,271/QALY (versus INO), and $93,768/QALY (versus CHEMO). Deterministic sensitivity analysis results were most sensitive to subsequent allogeneic stem cell transplant rates and post-progression utilities. PSA found that KTE-X19 is 78.4%, 74.0%, and 75.4% likely to be cost-effective versus BLIN, INO, and CHEMO, respectively. Across most scenarios, at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY, KTE-X19 was cost-effective versus all treatments.

Conclusions

Compared to current options for adults with R/R ALL, KTE-X19 is cost-effective, driven primarily by improved survival.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-022-02201-6.

Several treatments for adults with relapsed/refractory B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (R/R B-ALL) have been approved in the past decade in the US, including blinatumomab (BLIN) and inotuzumab ozogamicin (INO). However, despite the high costs associated with these treatments, survival for patients remains poor. KTE-X19, an autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy, approved by the Food and Drug Administration in October 2021, has potential to improve survival, but its economic value has not yet been determined. This model comprehensively evaluated the long-term clinical and economic value of KTE-X19 versus current treatments, including BLIN, INO, and salvage chemotherapy (CHEMO). Inputs were derived from key clinical trials, the literature, and other publicly available sources. The model used the perspective of a US third party payer over a patient lifetime. Compared to BLIN, INO and CHEMO, KTE-X19 resulted in improved quality of life as measured with incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of 2.44 (vs BLIN), 3.26 (vs INO), and 4.61 (vs CHEMO). Treatment with KTE-X19 had incremental costs of $50,913 (vs BLIN), $251,532 (vs INO), and $432,027 (vs CHEMO). KTE-X19 was found to provide good value for money based on incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $20,843/QALY (vs BLIN), $77,271/QALY (vs INO), and $93,768/QALY (vs CHEMO). These values are well below the commonly accepted thresholds to determine economic value. Results were also found to be robust across sensitivity and scenario analyses.

Cost-Effectiveness of Brexucabtagene Autoleucel versus Best Supportive Care for the Treatment of Relapsed/Refractory Mantle Cell Lymphoma following Treatment with a Bruton’s Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor in Canada

For patients with Mantle Cell Lymphoma (MCL), there is no recognized standard of care for relapsed/refractory (R/R) disease after treatment with a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi). Brexucabtagene autoleucel (brexu-cel) represents a promising new treatment modality in MCL. We explored whether brexu-cel was cost-effective for the treatment of R/R MCL. We developed a partitioned survival mixture cure approach to model the costs and outcomes over a lifetime horizon. The clinical data were derived from the ZUMA-2 clinical trial. The costs were estimated from the publicly available Canadian databases, published oncology literature, and pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review economic guidance reports. The health state utilities were sourced from the ibrutinib submission to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence for R/R MCL and supplemented with values from the published oncology literature. In the base case over a lifetime horizon, brexu-cel generated an incremental 9.56 life-years and an additional 7.03 quality-adjusted life-years compared to BSC, while associated with CAD 621,933 in additional costs. The resultant incremental cost-utility ratio was CAD 88,503 per QALY gained compared with BSC. Based on this analysis, we found brexu-cel to be a cost-effective use of healthcare resources relative to BSC for treatment of adult patients with R/R MCL previously treated with a BTKi in Canada, though additional research is needed to confirm these results using longer follow-up data.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of KTE-X19 CAR T therapy versus real-world standard of care in patients with relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma post BTKi in England

AIMS

The objective of this study is to estimate the cost-effectiveness of KTE-X19 versus standard of care (SoC) in the treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) post-Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi) treatment from a UK healthcare perspective.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A three-state partitioned survival model (pre-progression, post-progression and death) with a cycle length of one month was used to extrapolate progression-free and overall survival over a lifetime horizon. Population inputs along with KTE-X19 (brexucabtagene autoleucel) efficacy and safety data were derived from the single-arm trial ZUMA-2 (NCT02601313). The composition of SoC was informed by a literature-based meta-analysis, SoC efficacy data were obtained from the SCHOLAR-2 real-world study. Survival was modelled using standard parametric curves for SoC and a mixture-cure methodology for KTE-X19. It was assumed that patients whose disease had not progressed after five years experienced long-term remission. Costs, resource use and utility, and adverse event disutility inputs were obtained from published literature and publicly available data sources. An annual discount rate of 3.5% was applied to costs and health outcomes. Modelled outcomes for KTE-X19 and SoC included expected life years (LY), quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and total costs. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses and scenario analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Estimated median survival was 5.96 years for KTE-X19 and 1.38 for SoC. Discounted LYs, QALYs and lifetime costs were 8.27, 5.99 and £385,765 for KTE-X19 versus 1.98, 1.48 and £79,742 for SoC, respectively. The KTE-X19 versus SoC cost per QALY was £67,713 and the cost per LY was £48,645. Influential scenario analyses use alternative KTE-X19 survival curves and discount rates, and shorter time horizons.

CONCLUSION

Considering the survival and quality of life benefits compared to SoC, KTE-X19 for R/R MCL appears as a cost-effective treatment in the real-world UK setting.

Brexucabtagene Autoleucel: A Novel Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-cell Therapy for the Treatment of Mantle Cell Lymphoma

OBJECTIVE

To identify and assess the current literature surrounding the safety, efficacy, and practical considerations of brexucabtagene autoleucel (brexu-cel) for the treatment of relapsed or refractory (r/r) mantle cell lymphoma (MCL).

DATA SOURCES

An English-based literature search was conducted using the terms "brexucabtagene autoleucel" AND "mantle cell lymphoma" OR "KTE-X19"in PubMed (inception through May 1, 2021), EMBASE (inception through May 1, 2021), and ClinicalTrials.gov.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

All studies evaluating the use of brexu-cel in MCL were considered for inclusion.

DATA SYNTHESIS

In the pivotal ZUMA-2 trial, brexu-cel demonstrated objective response and complete response rates of 85% and 59%, respectively. These results were consistent among high-risk subgroups. Noteworthy treatment-related adverse effects included grade ≥3 cytopenias (94%), immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (31%), and cytokine release syndrome (15%). Brexu-cel elicited a toxicity profile similar to that of other novel chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell products, with no new safety signals.

RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE

There are currently no head-to-head clinical trials evaluating brexu-cel against other approved subsequent-line options in r/r MCL. In a relatively small phase II trial, brexu-cel demonstrated impressive response rates in heavily pretreated patients, with few viable alternatives. Long-term safety and efficacy outcomes with brexu-cel are unknown. The prevention, identification, and management of unique CAR T-cell toxicities requires expert care from a well-trained interdisciplinary team.

CONCLUSION

Brexu-cel has emerged as a viable treatment option in MCL. Additional studies are required to determine the optimal sequencing and place in therapy for brexu-cel in this highly heterogeneous, pathobiologically distinct, and incurable malignancy.

Toci or not toci: innovations in the diagnosis, prevention, and early management of cytokine release syndrome

Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) remains a significant toxicity of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy for hematologic malignancies. While established guidelines exist for the management of Grade 2+ CRS with immunosuppressive agents such as tocilizumab or corticosteroids, the management of early-grade CRS (i.e. Grade 1 CRS with isolated fevers) has no such consensus beyond supportive care. In this review, we discuss early-grade CRS with an emphasis on its diagnosis, management, and prevention. Strategies to target early-grade CRS include immunosuppression preemptively (once CRS develops) or prophylactically (before CRS develops) as well as novel small-molecule inhibitors or fractionated CAR-T dosing. In the near future, next-generation CAR-T therapies may be able to target CRS precisely or obviate CRS entirely. If shown to prevent CRS-associated morbidity while maintaining therapeutic anti-neoplastic efficacy, these innovative strategies will enhance the safety of CAR-T therapy while also improving its operationalization and accessibility in the real-world setting.