The Economic Burden of CAR T Cell Therapies Ciltacabtagene Autoleucel and Idecabtagene Vicleucel for the Treatment of Adult Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma in the US

Cost of implementing CAR-T activity and managing CAR-T patients: an exploratory study

BACKGROUND

Chimeric antigen receptor T cells (CAR-T) represent an innovation but raise issues for healthcare payers because of the uncertainty on impact at market launch, high cost and important organisational impact. The literature has focused on their assessment, appraisal and market access solutions. No evidence on the costs sustained to implement CAR-T is available and a few studies reported the cost of the CAR-T clinical pathway, including the activities that are remunerated through inpatient or outpatient fee-for-service/episode. This paper aims at filling the information gap, assessing the cost of implementing CAR-T activity and the full cost of managing the CAR-T clinical pathway.

METHODS

Cost analysis relied on the Activity Based Costing approach, which was applied to two Italian healthcare organisations, both CAR-T Centres authorized by the regional governments with a minimum of 20 patients treated with the first two CAR-T therapies launched on the market.

RESULTS

The cost of implementing CAR-T was estimated at €1.31 million (calculated for one of the organizations with complete data). Most of these costs (77%) were generated by quality assurance activity. The mean cost per patient entering the CAR-T pathway (59 and 27) and surviving at follow-up (21 and 5) ranges from €48K to €57K and from €96K to €106K, respectively. Fees for hospitalization and infusion of gene therapy accounts for more than 70% of these costs. The actual hospitalisation cost varies greatly across patients and is in general lower than the fee-for-episode paid by the region to the hospital.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite its limitations (exploratory nature; the time spent by staff on activities which are not remunerated through fees was estimated through interviews with the CAR-T coordinators; cost items are not fully comparable), this research highlighted the relevant organisational and economic impact of CAR-T and provided important insights for policy makers and healthcare managers: the necessity to invest resources in CAR-T implementation; the need for assessing activities which are not remunerated through fees for service / episode; the opportunity to shift from fee-for-episode / service to bundled payments for CAR-T clinical pathway.

Cost-Effectiveness of Anti-BCMA Chimeric Antigen Receptor T Cell Therapy in Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma

Despite its promising outcomes, anti-BCMA chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapy (CAR-T) is the most expensive myeloma treatment developed to date, and its cost-effectiveness is an important issue. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of anti-BCMA CAR-T compared to standard antimyeloma therapy in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. The model included myeloma patients in Japan and the United States who have received ≥3 prior lines of antimyeloma therapy, including immunomodulatory drugs, proteasome inhibitors, and anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies. A Markov model was constructed to compare the CAR-T strategy, in which patients receive either idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) or ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) followed by 3 lines of multiagent chemotherapy after relapse, and the no CAR-T strategy, in which patients receive only chemotherapy. Data from the LocoMMotion, KarMMa, and CARTITUDE-1 trials were extracted. Several assumptions were made regarding long-term progression-free survival (PFS) with CAR-T. Extensive scenario analyses were made regarding regimens for no CAR-T strategies. The outcome was an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) with willingness-to-pay thresholds of ¥7,500,000 in Japan and $150,000 in the United States. When a 5-year PFS of 40% with cilta-cel was assumed, the ICER of the CAR-T strategy versus the no CAR-T strategy was ¥7,603,823 per QALY in Japan and $112,191 per QALY in the United States over a 10-year time horizon. When a 5-year PFS of 15% with ide-cel was assumed, the ICER was ¥20,388,711 per QALY in Japan and $261,678 per QALY in the United States over a 10-year time horizon. The results were highly dependent on the PFS assumption with CAR-T and were robust to changes in most other parameters and scenarios. Although anti-BCMA CAR-T can be cost-effective even under current pricing, a high long-term PFS is necessary.

CAR T-Cell Therapy for Multiple Myeloma: A Clinical Practice-Oriented Review

The emergence of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy has revolutionized the treatment of hematologic malignancies, including multiple myeloma (MM). Two BCMA-directed CAR T-cell products - idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) and ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) - have received US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for patients with relapsed/refractory MM who underwent four or more prior lines of therapy (including an immunomodulatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody). Despite producing unprecedented response rates in an otherwise difficult to treat patient population, CAR T-cell therapies are commonly associated with immune-related adverse events (e.g., cytokine release syndrome and neurotoxicity), cytopenias, and infections. Moreover, many patients continue to exhibit relapse post-treatment, with resistance mechanisms yet to be fully understood. Ongoing basic, translational, and clinical research efforts are poised to generate deeper insights into the optimal utilization of these therapies, improve their efficacy, minimize associated toxicity, and identify new target antigens in patients with MM.

T Cell Receptor Chain Centricity: The Phenomenon and Potential Applications in Cancer Immunotherapy

T cells are crucial players in adaptive anti-cancer immunity. The gene modification of T cells with tumor antigen-specific T cell receptors (TCRs) was a milestone in personalized cancer immunotherapy. TCR is a heterodimer (either α/β or γ/δ) able to recognize a peptide antigen in a complex with self-MHC molecules. Although traditional concepts assume that an α- and β-chain contribute equally to antigen recognition, mounting data reveal that certain receptors possess chain centricity, i.e., one hemi-chain TCR dominates antigen recognition and dictates its specificity. Chain-centric TCRs are currently poorly understood in terms of their origin and the functional T cell subsets that express them. In addition, the ratio of α- and β-chain-centric TCRs, as well as the exact proportion of chain-centric TCRs in the native repertoire, is generally still unknown today. In this review, we provide a retrospective analysis of studies that evidence chain-centric TCRs, propose patterns of their generation, and discuss the potential applications of such receptors in T cell gene modification for adoptive cancer immunotherapy.

Post-infusion Costs Associated with Idecabtagene Vicleucel Treatment for Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma in the KarMMa Trial

INTRODUCTION

Patients with triple-class exposed relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) have poor outcomes with substantial healthcare costs. Idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel), a B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy, showed deep, durable responses in patients with RRMM in the pivotal phase 2 KarMMa trial (NCT03361748). Healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs were estimated for ide-cel-treated patients in the KarMMa trial.

METHODS

Post-infusion costs were estimated based on HCRU data, including facility care, diagnostics, medications, and procedures. Length of stay (LOS) was extracted for inpatient and intensive care unit (ICU) care. All patients had a 14-day post-infusion inpatient stay per trial protocol. Analyses were conducted for patients treated in the United States (US), who received the ide-cel target dose of 450 × 106 CAR + T cells and assuming a 7-day inpatient stay.

RESULTS

Overall, 128 patients received ide-cel and were included in this analysis. Mean age was 60 years, 59% were men, and 81% were white. Mean total LOS was 23.9 days. Total estimated costs over 24 months post-infusion were US$115,614 per patient, driven by facility costs (75%; $86,385). Most costs were incurred in the first month (58%; $67,259). The scenario analysis assuming a 7-day inpatient stay showed estimated 24-month costs of $92,294. For the 54 (42%) patients who received ide-cel high dose, total costs over 24 months were $113,298 per patient.

CONCLUSIONS

Extrapolation of costs based on HCRU data from patients receiving single-infusion of ide-cel in the KarMMa trial showed substantially reduced HCRU and costs over 2 years after initial treatment. Most costs were incurred during the first month after ide-cel infusion, likely attributable to the 14-day inpatient stay required by the trial protocol. These findings suggest a nominal, incremental monthly cost of care immediately after treatment, which may be lower in routine clinical practice.

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.